Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
MysticKnight

The Quran Challenge "bring A Surah Like It"

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

(bismillah)

Just to inform again - not argue.

The Qur'an has grammatical errors - partly because Arabic Grammar was an enterprise undertaken by grammarians to map out a patterned logic of the language, and which took place after the revelation of the Qur'an, and partly because it was revealed in the Prophet's own dialect, and partly because of philosophical, figurative or stylistic reasons.

Jebreil, great posts as always. I just want to question you on this point. If you look at all of the classical rule books of arabic grammar, they all use the Quran as the main source of the rules. Therefore it is in principle impossible for there to be any grammatical errors in the Quran as its the Quran that dictates the rules. Perhaps I misunderstood what you were getting at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jebreil

(bismillah)

(salam)

Thank you for the kind words. I myself thought so, but a hawza-educated person as well as reading some related books adjusted my view on this matter. Apparently, the Grammarians discovered a general pattern in the words - for example, 3 classifications of words: Noun, Verb and Preposition. Or they found that in Arabic, Subject and Adjective agree in Number, Gender and Definiteness whereas this agreement cannot be found between a Noun and a Noun Adjunct.

The Qur'an is a source of these patterns, since these patterns generally exist/existed. However, the language being a natural and lively one, also had many inconsistencies and exceptions. These were also noted by the Grammarians, who managed to classify these exceptions according to some logic. There remained some irreconcilable inconsistencies, which were simply outrageously discourteous to the Grammarian patterns and rules. They were even inconsistent with most of the Arabic of the Qur'an. But they were there. It conveyed some meaning. It broke the rules, but it remained language. For example, sometimes, the Qur'an allows a plural Subject agree with a singular Adjective, which normally would not occur in Arabic. (I know that some languages - such as Persian - allow this, while some languages do not - like English) In one case which I have studied, it breaks this rule for poetic and stylistic effect.

Breaking laws of Grammar is not poor use of language. Undisciplined and purposeless writing is. At least, that's my belief.

(wasalam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure exactly what you mean but I know per Shia interpretation of Quran, there could have been a better word to convey the meaning Shias believe in, like in 33:33 it could have been "Qeenaa" which would denote "keep away" while "yuthhab" through out Quran denotes remove from, and at the very least has that meaning possible.

someone talking about arabic grammar when he doesnt know what hes talking about .....

keep away = يذهب عنكم this is completely acceptable

remove = يذهب منكم

`ankum implies that it is being KEPT AWAY while minkum means it is being removed

and anyone who has studied arabic please correct me if i am wrong regarding this point

you keep talking like you have such a vast ocean of knowledge on everything

there is nothing wrong with making mistakes however you are not humble enough to accept that you might be wrong

in your document against the quran had you been sincere or humble you would say something like:

"i do not understand xyz because it seems like verse Y is conveying something different from verse Z"

instead you seem to say

"the clear contradiction of verse Y and verse Z ..."

when someone points out your mistakes you ignore and instead reply to posts that you can poke at with your literalistic lenses

:no:

Edited by 14infallibles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Breaking laws of Grammar is not poor use of language. Undisciplined and purposeless writing is. At least, that's my belief.

It will never seem purposeless or undisciplined as long as you believe there is an eloquent good wise reason of doing so. If what you said is true, it just show how subjective it's going to be.

One thing I think is a made up rule, is how "wa" can mean "or" while 99.9% of the time it means "and" . I think if the marriage verse to 1, 2, 3, 4 wives was not there, then no one would have said it can mean "or" and doesn't always mean conjunction. I also think the same applies to the beat verses where entirely a sentence in put in brackets "and if that doesn't work then", while it didn't state it.

Basically I really think it doesn't matter how wrong it is, people will go so far as to invent invisible words or just make it mean what they want.

someone talking about arabic grammar when he doesnt know what hes talking about .....

keep away = يذهب عنكم this is completely acceptable

remove = يذهب منكم

`ankum implies that it is being KEPT AWAY while minkum means it is being removed

and anyone who has studied arabic please correct me if i am wrong regarding this point

I remember such argument back in the day. According to my research this is baseless and the tafsirs don't mention this.

Also we see in the other places in Quran where everyone took it to mean "remove from"...it's the same thing 'ankum'

Take for example:

وَقَالُوا الْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ الَّذِي أَذْهَبَ عَنَّا الْحَزَنَ ۖ إِنَّ رَبَّنَا لَغَفُورٌ شَكُورٌ {34}

[Shakir 35:34] And they shall say: (All) praise is due to Allah, Who has made grief to depart from us; most surely our Lord is Forgiving, Multiplier of rewards,

[Pickthal 35:34] And they say: Praise be to Allah Who hath put grief away from us. Lo! Our Lord is Forgiving, Bountiful,

[Yusufali 35:34] And they will say: "Praise be to Allah, Who has removed from us (all) sorrow: for our Lord is indeed Oft-Forgiving Ready to appreciate (service):

As you can see no one translated as "kept away".

Are you going to argue the people of this verse whomever were meant, never felt grief, and God kept it away from them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jebreil

(bismillah)

Go read more literature. Read the 16th century Montaigne. Watch the 20th century Samuel Beckett. Have a look at the writers who developed the Narrative of Stream of Consciousness. These are all appreciated as excellent literary standard. They are guilty of writing in such random and broken-up language. Their works are regarded as monuments of world literature.

The Qur'an has an amazing combination of short and quirky, long and mature, militarily sharp, sweetly free, concise and unified, loose and free-flowing chapters and verses when it comes to style.

Literature is much richer than you make out. Read more literature and be more open-minded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember such argument back in the day. According to my research this is baseless and the tafsirs don't mention this.

Also we see in the other places in Quran where everyone took it to mean "remove from"...it's the same thing 'ankum'

Take for example:

وَقَالُوا الْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ الَّذِي أَذْهَبَ عَنَّا الْحَزَنَ ۖ إِنَّ رَبَّنَا لَغَفُورٌ شَكُورٌ {34}

[Shakir 35:34] And they shall say: (All) praise is due to Allah, Who has made grief to depart from us; most surely our Lord is Forgiving, Multiplier of rewards,

[Pickthal 35:34] And they say: Praise be to Allah Who hath put grief away from us. Lo! Our Lord is Forgiving, Bountiful,

[Yusufali 35:34] And they will say: "Praise be to Allah, Who has removed from us (all) sorrow: for our Lord is indeed Oft-Forgiving Ready to appreciate (service):

As you can see no one translated as "kept away".

Are you going to argue the people of this verse whomever were meant, never felt grief, and God kept it away from them?

This is a good point ... I don't have a response to you right now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are guilty of writing in such random and broken-up language.

I don't know their writting and haven't studied it. But if some people regard it as eloquent, it doesn't mean every single part of their literature is eloquent.

I've been reading Quran for a long time, so I am familiar with it. I don't need to study all literature to get an idea of what is eloquent to me.

I know Quran is eloquent to a lot of people but I think it has more to do with the belief it is. Non-Muslims will feel influenced by the mass impression of all the Muslim scholars and Arabic experts, and have good chance of just agreeing based on that.

I honestly can't go by what is considered eloquent or not by others. If I find something completely loose, ugly, not beautiful, not super eloquent, then to me it shows at least Quran is not eloquent to everyone and that eloquence is really subjective then.

I'm not the only person whom has complained about the non-flow of some of the Surahs of Quran.

At the very least I can look at Suratal Abu Lahab and be 100% sure this literature is not something super eloquent that is beyond human. The same is true of Suratal Falaq.

When Quran is believed to be false, you will have different experience, and that whole awe impression just goes away. Then imagining all this hidden flow and greatness, just goes away.

If eloquence is subjective, we really can't conclude that eloquence of Quran is beyond human, can we now? If it seems ugly to us, and to many others, what can we do about it?

If I honest to God feel suratal Abu Lahab is not eloquent, Suratal Ahzab being super bad quality, then what can I do?

I'm suppose to just go by what others say about it? What about the ones that say it's bad. What about non-Muslims whom found it bad?

I'm suppose to disrust my view of eloquence and just trust others.

I've been reading Quran for a long time always telling myself it's beautiful. When I do Shahada in Salah, I would be confirming that.

I would convince myself it's obvious how marvelous it is to everyone.

Basically it means you show Suratal Abu Lahab to anyone and he should be awe broken by how amazing it is. I find myself that I was deluded and was not objective. It's really an absurd thing to say. These few words are so amazing that you can see it must be from God and a human cannot write it? Really, seriously? We can see how bad the bible sounds, but Christians can't.

And when I would read Saheefa Sajadiya, I always found it so much more beautiful then Quran. Honest to God I did.

Edited by MysticKnight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jebreil

(bismillah)

I don't doubt for a second your honesty. I do have reservations for your brashness with respect to your thoughts and beliefs. However, there is such a thing as good taste and bad taste, and it could be that you have bad taste - I'm being honest with you, not sugarcoating. But I don't want to be unkind.

Reading more and learning to appreciate the goodness in unfamiliar formats plays a part in opening the heart to the boundless possibilities of language. Just as studying and visiting other cultures and ideologies breaks the dogmatic walls we put around us, so does reading and listening and watching and reflecting and engaging in conversation. It is ridiculous to appreciate every habit in every culture as worthy and noble. The point of travelling and studying is not to say Yes to everything we come across. However, it broadens our vision, burns the extra fat in the brain, and helps us develop good judgement and mature taste. In literature, reading and listening, etc, does the same. Not every text written is eloquent and skillful. However, by expanding our literary experiences, we develop a feel for good writing and bad writing, and the underlying causes. Some of the earlier prejudices fade, for example. Some people dislike rhymeless poetry because they assume that good poetry must rhyme. Once they come across a beautiful but unrhymed poem, this prejudice falls apart.

I am amazed that you do not see the blazing imagery and charged rhyme in Surah Masad (Lahab).

The wordplay of using Abu Lahab (Father of Fire)'s name with his fate, and by casting his abetting wife as the person carrying firewood to fuel his fire which consumes him is brilliant imagery and use of language, purely on the literary side of things.

The first verse has a victorious spring in its melody, with good use of alliteration.

The verses all rhyme or semi-rhyme.

Religiously, it strikes into the heart the actual ugliness and terror which result from our evil actions. We, readers who are centuries and generations apart from the main characters, still feel the immense burst of God's Justice rushing out to humble Abu Lahab. In fact, it is so vehemently real, we may even feel pity for the man - not knowing who he really was and what he really did and how the prophet really suffered by his hands.

In meaning, it provides us with the futility of Wife, Wealth and anything of this World. It promises that it will all perish and God will feed us with what we have done in this world - presumably as long as He deems it fair to do so.

Interestingly, this Surah came 10 years prior to Abu Lahab's death. He and his wife were promised Hellfire in the Qur'an. They had 10 years, but they never embraced Islam. God knew this of them and revealed His sentence upon them 10 years prior to their deaths, for all to see that God knows the fate of humans before the humans taste it themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your commentary on it is more amazing then the Surah itself, and you are good at making anything no matter how bad sound good.

Our actions being taken into account was repeated in Quran. This Surah would not be revealing that. You can get that out of so many verses through out Quran.

This world perishing is not something this Surah reveals as well, you can always remind yourself of this fact with everything of the Quran, talking about judgment day etc...

There being a hell was repeated.

The wife being blamed for his misguidance and the expression of carrier of the wood to me is not that eloquent.

At the end the Surah is expressing God's judgement on one human and expressing his fate.

We already know disbelievers, astray souls are going to hell. We already know those whom desire this world are going to hell. We already know judgement day and next world and this world is not going to last.

The Surah is basically expressing God's judgment on a man.

As for his harsh wrath, the real exitent is not really shown that much here because we don;t really know whom Abu Lahab is, that is more shown where desire of the world or being astray earns you hell.

At the end you can make out of it what you will, to me it's not eloquent, and as if Quran needed more reminder of hell fire and God's wrath on people.

To express the fate of one person in hell, seems the most uneloquent to do. So many people go in hell, but we should all be reminded of this one person going to hell and having his fate sealed before his death by God?

Edited by MysticKnight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jebreil

(bismillah)

To express the fate of one person in hell, seems the most uneloquent to do.

I think you are confused as to what "eloquence" is.

The wife being blamed for his misguidance and the expression of carrier of the wood to me is not that eloquent.

Original metaphors which become figures of speech are highly prized in literature - "carrier of fire wood" is one such figure of speech. Ah, only a poet can understand!

I'm just expressing what I could see in this text if I read it in its best light and with charitable reading. I also do this with Books that I do not consider authoritative or divine. I like Biblical language and some of its books are written superbly. The sermon on the mount is eloquent. Paul has nice sayings too. The Book of Tao is a lovely and wise read as well.

The Qur'an is a miracle for me - but so are many other books. The Qur'an is a divine miracle too - but that's because I find it is like a Trifle pudding - different layers of lovely colours: sponge, jelly, cream and a cherry on top, harmoniously arranged into a unified, small but tangy dessert. The Qur'an manages to be a Book for Humans in all its human possibilities while remaining in the finite world of language and space and time. It packs everything into a short but lively volume, brimming with imagery, persuasion, legal injunction, supplication, questions, parables, histories, arguments and the like. If one just simply applies "charitable reading", which means seeing the Qur'an in its best light, then all doubts disappear.

I wholeheartedly believe that we should apply "charitable reading" to absolutely every text there is - divine, human, theistic or atheistic. However, I also believe that the charitable reading of the Qur'an places it at the head of all other books charitably read. I haven't read all books. But a book that could rival the Qur'an would probably have found its way into the bestsellers list. As to the books which I have read, the Qur'an is the greatest miracle. It's not the only miracle though - there are many masterpieces, fictional and non-fictional, and I love them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly don't find "wood' itself a good expression... I know it was a poetic way but to me it's uneloquent because of it's inaccuracy with the nature of the next world fire which is obviously not in need of wood and if taken metaphorically as the evil that turns into hell, I see it very inaccurate to make the wife carrier of all that.

If you can care to explain what "wood" here really signifies? Are all the man's sins that are to be ignited carried by his wife? Is it eloquent to express this at wood?

I don't see an obvious expression of the metaphor.

At most, this can be eloquent thing.. I don't see it myself.

But it's not a saving grace of the Surah. Basically singling out a person for hell, when so much have been promised in hell, so much emphasis has already been emphasized this world is delusion, etc..all that this Surah does is make focus the judgment of God on two people.

And even if it has eloquence, it's absurd to say it's a level of eloquence beyond humanity, at the very least it could be good literature, but a level beyond human...sorry that's much....and it's irrational thing to say and believe.

I can read the first du'a of Saheefa Sajadiya and feel that is way more eloquent and better literature then Suratal abu Lahab.

Edited by MysticKnight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
f one just simply applies "charitable reading", which means seeing the Qur'an in its best light

You should also see open your mind to criticism, and this something people don't do. A person can talk positively about Quran repeating the same points, to say it's to effect the heart, but another person can look at that, and say that doesn't justify it, because it's way too repetive in the same points over and over again. Most of Quran is repeating the same things over and over again.

I don't find that beautiful. Reminding us about hell over and over again, gives the impression God wants us to be motivated out of fear of it. Talking about reward over and over again gives us expression he wants us to motivate us out of paradise. Yet we don't find the lovely hadith that we shouldn't Worship God out of fear of hell or reward of paradise, no it actually states in Quran after paradise "so for the like of this let the doers acts"...

When you read Rumi poetry, what do you get? Love, love, love of God should be your motivation... that's the repeated emphasis....

What is Quran's motive for humanity to follow Islam...you reject Islam and you go to hell... it mentions deniers objecting to Mohammad and what do we get, warning of hell...

hell hell hell motivation..over and over again..repeating repeating...

You may find that beautiful, but I don't. I use to give the charitable thought it's for effecting the hearts, but it's a lame excuse.

Repeating the same stories over again is also lame to me.

It's bad enough this is the last divine book, most of it repeating the same stuff...how many times do we have be told God guides and misguides?

how many times do we have to hear disbelievers are blind, deaf?

If you look at, most of it saying the same thing over and over again...in different ways...I don't find that eloquent..I don't find it beautiful...

We get it God is going to punish...we got to be told over and over again?

If there was 120 000 Prophets, filling it with their lives and wise words and sermons, would've been better and more inspirational then repeating same points over and over again.

Imagine we had a Surah explaining in detail how to estbalish just government, set up democracy, how we should go about, stop corruption, wouldn't that be better then purpose of Suratal Abu Lahab or Suratal Kaffiroon?

Instead we got left in the dark about that and we are still being ruled by dictators.

Edited by MysticKnight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes and may I add my own personal research into the brilliant wisdom of the shortness of the last chapters of the Quran with respect to the longest medinan chapters in the beginning of the Quran and the striking consistency of the concepts, warnings and message given in both sets of suras. It is amazing how a span of 23 years of prophetic warning, in completely different circumstances brings forth the same precepts and concepts unaffected by time itself. And i'm not simply speaking of the monotheistic message of Islam, i'm talking about the finer details that the Quran cares to share with us.

Aside from the fiery imagery, alliteration and rhyme lauded by brother Jebreil concerning Surat Al-Lahab I would much like to demonstrate what i'm speaking about by using this very chapter and relevant verses in very distant chapters in the Quran. In the second verse of Surat Al-Lahab the futility of both personal property and retained currency an adamant disbeliever like Abu-Lahab has is stated in six short words when pertaining to salvation from the Hell-fire. Abu Lahab would constantly retort that he would purchase Hell with his wealth and escape it (refer to Sir Ahmed Ali's commentary) and this verse (shall avail him not his wealth nor what he earnth) expresses the futility of both forms of this personal wealth (namely private property and coinage) in the Afterlife. Indeed the context of the chapter puts it all perfectly as the succeeding verse says he would 'soon burn in the flaming fire'.

Now here is where you will witness the marvellous consistency of the Quran whilst being exposed to the fact that it's not simply a matter of tiresome repitition; rather, each of these verses compliment one another. In Surat Ale-i-Imran verse 91 the Holy Quran expands further on the futility of personal wealth for adamant disbelievers by saying:

"Verily those who disbelieve and die while they are disbelievers, never shall be accepted even an earthful of gold from any of them, if he should offer it in ransom; these, for them awaiteth a painful torment and for them there shall be no helpers"

Here the Quran elaborates on the fact that owning all of earth's most valuable element (or one of the most valuable) won't ransom you and further no external help will be given for salvation (whether it be a righteous companion, the angels, prophets or even God).

Again in another medinan chapter such as Surat Al-Ma'ida the Quran reiterates this message by saying:

"Verily those who disbelieve, if they had what is in the earth all together and the like of it with it, so that they ransom with it from the torment of the Day of Resurrection, it shall not be accepted from them; and for them there is a painful torment" (5:36) Here a much more forceful, more universal impact is given relating to the utter futility of the disbelievers ransoming themselves from the Fire. A hypothetical scenario is suggested where even if you were the proprieter of all the earth's resources, forgetting mere personal wealth, it would count to nothing! And double the amount!

I'm pretty sure there are more verses that could be brought forth but one cannot help but be charmed by such isolated verses in long medinan chapters - that speak of a variety of different topics - sharing the same consistent warning and further complimenting one another by minor additional details without the unnecessary repetition...and to think all these verses are written perfectly in context and in a completely eloquent manner! From the early days of Mecca to the latter period of Medina where long chapters are being revealed that mainly speak of legislative & political issues, the message never changes.

Indeed these short suras are also revealing an undeniable consistency: not contradictary, rather complimentary!

Edit: Sorry forgot to post the second verse of Surat Al-Lahab.

Edited by La'nat Ma Man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May I also add that the Quran's adamance in that God cannot be bought in the Afterlife further sheds light on His famous attribute of being All-Just. Indeed the stubborn opposition to rationale that further leads you to a path of endless sinning will never be overlooked by the control, dominance and power one has achieved. It's not quantity, but quality and distributing via the right channels that counts when it comes to Divine Justice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not charmed by the two verses you quoted. I get a negative impression from it that makes me feel it's not God whom said it. But maybe I'm just so sick of the Quran, read it way too much.

You're not really reflecting on all the facts that paint a relevant background to these scattered verses in the Quran. Read my post diligently and then time would be considered worth spending on this subject with you...

Anyway it's 4:14am here in England and i'm off to bed; perhaps I can continue this dialogue with you the following day.

G'night.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The challenge was not exactly to just bring a surah like the Quran's like.

This what Muslims have understood of it, and explained.

Here are the verses of challenge:

(قُلْ لَئِنِ اجْتَمَعَتِ الْأِنْسُ وَالْجِنُّ عَلَى أَنْ يَأْتُوا بِمِثْلِ هَذَا الْقُرْآنِ لا يَأْتُونَ بِمِثْلِهِ وَلَوْ كَانَ بَعْضُهُمْ لِبَعْضٍ ظَهِيراً) (الإسراء:88

أَمْ يَقُولُونَ افْتَرَاهُ قُلْ فَأْتُواْ بِعَشْرِ سُوَرٍ مِّثْلِهِ مُفْتَرَيَاتٍ وَادْعُواْ مَنِ اسْتَطَعْتُم مِّن دُونِ اللّهِ إِن كُنتُمْ صَادِقِينَ } – هود 13

(أَمْ يَقُولُونَ افْتَرَاهُ قُلْ فَأْتُوا بِسُورَةٍ مِثْلِهِ وَادْعُوا مَنِ اسْتَطَعْتُمْ مِنْ دُونِ اللَّهِ إِنْ كُنْتُمْ صَادِقِينَ) (يونس:38

The first ayah states that even if they were challenged people to bring something like the like of the Quran-not just one chapter- they will not be able to.

To have challenged people whom were worshipping idols to bring literature like a literature that was unique of it's time and copy a style they have never seen, is irrational challenge. If people can write like harry potter, don;t you think they would? People can't mimic a whole new style....

However, does it mean that style is divine, beyond human? No...

It was unfair challenge to the Arabs...the fact is they don't need to bring a Surah the like of it, if they are truthful. They can reject on other grounds. And they had one good reasons recorded in Quran. They were constantly asking for a miracle like how Mohammad claimed other Prophets had. Like how Musa reacted when Firon asked him to bring a Sign. Instead we hear "Your only a warner " "the unseen belongs to God, wait, we too are waiting"....basically just stating something that has nothing to do with their challenge and why he doesn't send a miracle....

When they sad we won't believe you do this, or do that or do this....saying your only a mortal Messenger doesn't make sense, speically given the fact Musa brought 9 signs consecutively.

The excuse for not sending miracles was the lamest excuse you can tell a people "nothing prevented us from sending the Signs except that the ancients rejected them"...what kind of excuse is this...you can see my thread about it or see the 28 issues docoment I wrote on further problems with this verse (it basically is impossible to be true).

They had a rational reason of rejecting him, he didn't bring miracles like in the past, he didn't have evidence for his Prophethood, and they don't need to prove the Quran is not beyond human by making something like of it, they can see it's human.

To put it bluntly, if someone told me, 'write like harry potter or admit it's written by an alien of higher intellect that communicated it to her', I would say this is an irrational conclusion. The same is true if a no one in my city can write like harry potter. We wouldn't have to write like it...and humanity doesn't have to write something like it to prove it wrong....

It's an illogical argument. I don't have to write like harry potter to justify belief that it's not written by an alien of higher intellect. There also doesn't have to be a book like harry potter for that to be justified.

I can see it's not beyond human, and I don't have to accept this claim, and it's baseless unproven claim.

In fact in the case of Quran, if I can prove logical errors, I would have a rational basis of rejecting it, and I don't need to bring a Surah like of it.

So even if they came up with ten, the challenge is not defeated they need to call upon-not sure if that means they need to pray to other than God and be answered or to call upon followers and they'd be followed?

I think it just means you call witnesses to being like the Quran other then God.

So if I can get non-Muslims to think one of the surahs I wrote is Suratal Falaq and one of the Surah I wrote is like Suratal Kaffiroon (you can judge if this two surahs are like them for yourself), then the challenge seems to be met.

It also didn't say it must be in Arabic and if people feel it's similar enough, the challenge is met.

Just from quickly analyzing those three ayaat, you'd notice that the only statement that says they will NOT come up with it's like, it's referring to entire Quran not just a part.

Then this challenge is pretty much set for victory no matter what, one chapter can't be like a whole book can it now?

Edited by MysticKnight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also invite people to do one thing. Go read some of Bahai books, so that when you hear constantly talking about Messengers being rejected in the past, and how in the past there was Messenger and people were suppose to believe in them, and constant reliance on this and what caused them to not believe... You will see how lame it is and how it is avoiding the whole issue of his proof of messengerhood. It;s one big huge red herring. It doesn't do anything for the case of Bah'alallah. It's lame he talks about Messengers in the past being rejected, to meaning he shouldn't be rejected, it's so lame, and you will see it, because you don't believe it helps his case at all, and it's a red herring of his proof of Prophethood.

This specially because Baha'alllah had no miracles...the same is true of telling the Arabs of miracles int he past and people rejecting it...when you don't bring miracles yourself.

Quran is filled with red herring. They think he might be crazy... Tell them about how they will be punished in hell, not rationally explain why he can't be crazy...avoid the topic

they tell why don't you bring a book from the sky...tell them about how Musa's people asked for a bigger sign, to see God....

It's filled with red herring through out...

Why not bring a Sign "Your only a warner and for every people there is a Guide" "People in the past didn't believe, would they believe?" Avoiding the question...

It's filled with red herring....

Imagine if miracles were brought from the start to the end, and a lot of the Quran was forbearingly explain them why it's irrational to believe it's Magic, with rational argument. Instead of just telling them people in the past rejected, we made them perish....we cant send them to you because people in the past rejected them.... "people in the past rejected, what makes you think you will believe"....all nothing but lame way of avoiding the fact he had no proof like the past Prophets he claims were sent.

Then if they reject after miracles and sound argument why it can't be magic...you can complain about them being blind...otherwise all that seems nothing but red herring

Edited by MysticKnight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jebreil

(bismillah)

I do think that people should be more open minded to criticism of the Qur'an. It's a human right, so to speak.

However, from someone who used to be an admirer of the Qur'an, one does expect a mellower and more cautious approach. After all, you used to love the Book and now you are questioning that, which is your right. However, when you were in love, you couldn't condemn yourself for loving it. I'm sure you were taken in by it. It's just courtesy to your own past emotions which should blunt your knife. I don't believe for a second that you shouldn't criticise - I just believe that your criticism should not appear as an "absolute condemnation" which is how it seems to be.

I disagree with those who fight your questions - I welcome your questions - I am in full agreement with those who don't sympathise with the scathing tone. If the questions were put forward as the irreconcilability of your reasoning with the reasoning of the Qur'an, then I would find it brave and noble at the same time. Brave for admitting to this belief crisis and Noble for being quick t analyse but slow to pass judgement. Perhaps you see my point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me add when I speak of the charm the above quoted verses exert, i'm speaking about the consistency and all the variables surrounding these verses which I spoke tons about and kindly request of you to read once more. I'm not speaking about the moral compass enveloping the content of these few verses...that's not the charm i'm speaking of. It would be very silly to display a moral dissatisfaction with three verses that merely emphasize the extent of the divine justice in the afterlife with respect to no material bribery being accepted as a sufficient reason for concession from the Almighty.

And now you're claiming the Prophet disavowed any miracles for himself. What a lousy assessment of the Quranic verses relating to this issue. It's of the utmost humility and consistency with the divine attributes the Prophet preaches that he never attributed any miracle to himself. Miracles are performed by God and every prophet is only a human being so the Quran states he (Muhammad) can not bring forth a sign unless God wills it (i.e. unless God intervenes himself). Surat Al-An'am succinctly replies that 'Verily God is able to bring a sign, but most people know not'. The main duty of the messenger is clearly outlined in the Quran as a warner, a bearer of good news to the faithful and a guide to the lost. This can only be fully absorbed in the person's consciousness via the ways of reasoning, and this is exactly what the Quran has been doing throughout as you are fully aware without bringing the issue of miracles next to the relevant arguments. People deny the Supreme Lord, the Quran asks them to reflect on their creation and the equilibrium in the universe. People argued to the Prophet why they couldn't speak to God and signs aren't manifest, the Quran replies that this mentality is reminiscient of the people of yore and that the design and beauty of the universe has many signs that are made clear by the Almighty for those who seriously reflect; it allows you to see a purpose in creation and that God is all-wise and the sheer foolery of an invisible omnipotent Lord engaging in discussions with every individual. They argued they can't see God. A brilliant narrative of Moses and his people is brought forth where the Israelites themselves were a bunch of atheists and a meaningful, aesthetic truth is derived from the decimation of a firm mountain when the Lord's glory is revealed to it. Indeed a person asked Imam Ja'far As-Sadiq to show him God, the imam told him to look at the Sun and his eyes couldn't bear the intensity of the light rays. The Imam replied: If you cannot see the created, how are you expected to see the Creator? Moreover the Quran resorts to reasoning when it comes to the Oneness of God by speaking of the disorder and corruption that would result in the multiplicity of gods.

As for the Quran's arguments against the idolatry of the time, well I don't think there's any need to bring them up in this discussion! The Quran also proved the divine origin of the Quran by prophecies that were to be fulfilled; and the ultimate point on the checklist that ensured the consistency of the divine revelation was to bring a chapter alike to the Quran, one that neither resembled any of the impressive meters of poetry those days (which still have their roots in modern poetry) and have an at least comprehensible meaning (not gobbledygook as Abdur-Rahim Green puts it lol). And all this by an illiterate man who was bringing forth a message resplendant with reasoning and guidance. As a matter of fact there were few in the Prophet's age and later after his death who took the challenge. One notable person was the false prophet Musailama, who appeared in the latter period of the Prophet's life.

This was how the message reached the people and this is how it was instilled into their hearts. This is why for the most part of the Meccan era of preaching no miracles were presented. When the Quran compares them to the ancient people, it's simply comparing their obstinacy against the rationale preached in the message that would expel their deep-rooted idolatry. They are the ones who have betrayed their intellect and forever left without guidance by God's will, so no miracle would do any good. They would just go about in their denial and reject every sign and label it sorcery just as Moses' people and Jesus' people did (interestingly the Talmud labels Jesus as an evil sorcerer who will burn in Hell).

Despite all of this, a miracle was eventually presented to the more open-minded Meccans. The Quran refers to this and every commentary agrees on the background of the revelation of these verses. It was when the Meccans asked for a sign and God finally willed a miracle to be given to the Prophet by splitting the moon in half. What was the answer? With their free will the meccans unfortunately turned to their satanic insinuations and labelled this miracle as part of Muhammad's 'continuous sorcery'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps you see my point?

I see your point and agree with it, except for being cautious, I was as cautious as far as denying, I been struggling through it, finding logical errors but not being conclusive till thinking about for months and months. I was as cautious as I can be as to denying it...

the same is not true of believing in it, believing it didn't take thorough analysis, when it said it had no contradictions, it meant it didn't, when people said there is no errors in Quran, it meant it didn't... I never took caution in believing...

And it's not fair to ask one human not state what he feels he has concluded, but that you can state everything without "perhaps it is, it isn't" attitude.

Why does it have to be that I have to say maybe all the errors I found in Quran, the red hering, the non-eloquence of repeating the same things over and over again, etc, when I now believe I conclusively know there is logical errors in Quran, etc...

Do Muslims say 'Perhaps Mohammad is a Messenger of God" or do they testify to it? So it's hypocritical to tell everyone else they have to be cautious in denying, when they are not caution in affirming.

In fact, I been testifying to Mohammad being a Messenger of God before I even read a translation of Quran. Most Muslims will testify to Mohammad as kids in Salah without even reading Quran. Why didn't Islam teach not to testify without being sure about it? Are kids sure about it, that they should testify?

Double standards.

And now you're claiming the Prophet disavowed any miracles for himself.

I'm aware of the moon miracle and some verses stating signs come and they reject it.

However that doesn't change the other verses "Why not a sign brought to him.." "let him bring a sign like those of the past were sent", none of those were replied with that they would be shown a miracle or that they have been shown miracles, instead it was all red herring.

Then finally it seems there came a revealed reason and it's "nothing prevented us from sending the signs except that the ancients rejected'

Ofcourse you make all these other reasons, "they would have rejected, etc' but that's not what the verse states, but it's really lame to tell a people that too, 'nothing prevented us from sending miracles except that you would reject them" is bad too.

If that reason didn't prevent him from sending miracles later...it wouldn't prevent him from before...so there is a contradiction.

You can't see how much avoiding the issue of miracles with red herring in Quran, because we all want to feel Mohammad was sent with miracles, even if there is explicit proof in Quran he didn't

Did Musa make an excuse "that they would reject it" or did he provide a miracle right away when they asked for a proof?

Also making up different reasons as to why he didn't send miracles is up to you, but the Quran gives a reason 'the ancients rejected them' which is not a reason at all. What makes it worse, the fact ancients rejected them and they were sent miracles nullifies the assumption that Arabs rejecting them would be a reason not to send it to them.

People make up other reasons "didn't wnat to punish them" etc, but all this is lame reasons and not the reason stated.

Also, saying "God can send a sign but must people do not know" is red herring that is wrong too, everyone knows God can send a sign, that is why they were asking for a miracle in the first place, it was that intuitive.

Edited by MysticKnight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mystic through your posts I have seen that you aren't willing to accept islam as a religion. I proved to you in that chatroom the other day that something which you thought was a mistake in the Qur'an wasnt a mistake yet you still claimed it to be a mistake. It was to do with when the Prophet (pbuh) came and the disbelievers said nothing is holding us back from believing in this religion except that we do not believe a mortal would be sent to deliver this message if it was true <-- something along those lines.

From that time I can tell that you are never going to accept the truth. I pray Allah (swt) guides you towards islam, but I think this is like one of those WF against Anti-WF threads where no1 changes their opinion. I do not think you are going to change your opinion on Islam even if proof was brought to you, which in no doubt has most likely been brought to you several times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mystic through your posts I have seen that you aren't willing to accept islam as a religion.

What is the point of saying all this?

I've been Muslim for a long time, I think you should also ask yourself, are you willing to consider Islam as false? Or is this a one way thing, non-Muslims have to be opened minded to Islam being true, but Muslims can't be open minded to Islam being false?

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  

  • Recent Posts on ShiaChat!

    • Salam, I feel guilty for not pursuing formal Islamic education at hawza, and I find so many excuses which are not valid.  I'm currently studying Civil Engineering at University and I have one year left to graduate. I'm pretty sure I'll end up getting a grad job (inshallah) and earn a decent amount. When I get a job, I'll work from 9-5 everyday and chill a bit when I get home. However, I really want to persue Islamic education. I know for a fact that my parents won't let me, as they just want me to have a secure job where I can earn enough and be happy. They don't know my values and goals. I have always been into religion and I want to get a better understanding of it. Studying it at home is not the same, as you don't have a mentor or teacher.  I even live in a part of Australia where there is no Islamic seminary or anything. I don't wanna work for the rest of my life and not gain proper Islamic knowledge. It annnoys me at times. Like it's a massive investment which will benefit me. Btw I'm 21 years of age right now. Do you have any advice? 
    • Salam Zahra, It's totally not abnormal for someone young like you to be afraid of death. You know most people don't fear death itself but what comes after it. So what you should do is calm down and understand why you fear it. And then try not to think about it that much. Occupy yourself with something like exercising, reading, or hanging out with friends. And don't just read Quran and pray just out of fear but understand why it's good for you do those things. Ask for somebody's, like family, opinion or perspective, that can help very much you know. I hope this helps you inshallah
    • Fair enough. If way back then, the texts said, Man was created from hydrocarbon - I doubt it would make much sense to anyone so bad analogy. Thanks. Jesus also said he has not come to destroy the Law but fulfill it and anyone advocating not following the law is least in the Kingdom of God.      
    • Salam I would like to study in Iran but I don't know how to apply from here,  I'm from Pakistan. If anyone can help me with this I'll be really grateful for their helpp
    • Salam, Does anyone have really good quotes about knowledge and learning by Imam Ali?
×