If Muhammad wasn't an actual prophet, then where did the Qur'an come from?

[LuisDantas]

Seems like I don't find mystics half as different from everyday people as some of you do!

 

[Storm]

Is it possible for a man who is a natural mystic, not to be truthful?

Of course. It's also possible for him to be mistaken in his interpretations.

 

[McBell]

Exactly, not sure why people are having difficulty understanding this?

It is because when you take one particular book and use it as the standard for all other books, no other book will measure up.

I have seen people who do the exact same thing with the KJV of the Bible.

 

[madnessinmysoul]

The OP has not had an adversarial stance so why be insulting about it? You could have said everything you did without the insulting demeanor.

...I'm not being insulting. The closest I got to an insult is 'some guy in the desert' which, regardless of your opinions on Muhammad, is a description that fits him. Or maybe 'it's not even that great of a book' is insulting?

I'm not trying to be insulting, I'm being frank.

 

[madnessinmysoul]

What, exactly, is your point? What you've posted is completely irrelevant.

My point is quite clear and quite relevant.

1: Illiterate people can dictate things even if they can't read or write.
2: The Qur'an isn't that great of a book in the first place, so it's creation over a lifetime by an illiterate individual isn't something that would point to divine inspiration.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

So How did Shakespeare write his plays. he too was uneducated.
At least Mohammad had scribes.
Book writing need not be anything special
Convincing people that what you write, is the word of God is the tricky bit.
As far as the Qur'an goes I am very far from convinced.

 

[PolyHedral]

So How did Shakespeare write his plays. he too was

He didn't. The "texts" are transcriptions, by third parties, from memory.

 

[LuisDantas]

The matter of the Quran itself is separate, but relevant: can such a text be considered as inspired by God in the first place? Further, can it stand up to the claims that it is the authentic, immutable and final revelation from the one and only God?

It is clear to me that no, it can't possibly even be seen as evidence of the existence of God. It is far too tied to its time and culture of origin, far too harsh to Atheism, and most of all, it has been misused far too often to lend it credibility in that respect. It has considerable artistic merit, but falls way short of being the ultimate book of the ultimate religion that many people want to see it as being.

 

[smidjit]

We all know that Muhammad (PBUH) was an unlettered man. If he wasn't actually a prophet, then where did the Qur'an come from?
It would be better if you have actually read the Qur'an in Arabic beforehand as it cannot be fully appreciated any other way.

A messiah complex

 

[Debater Slayer]

I think we can. I don't think we understand, but we can occasionally "pull back the veil."

But your statement confuses me. If we can't "see" God, then how can we have Prophets in the first place?

I believe that Moses talked to God, Abraham was basically God's friend and Muhammad saw God's light (this is all in the Islamic concept of prophets though, other religions are surely different).

I think we're saying the same thing in different theological terminology.

IOW, if I were a theist, I'd agree with you. As a panentheist, I think you've
got the mechanics wrong, but that's not terribly important.

It's certainly not. I think we just have different interpretations for the same word.

And all of those ideas informed his interpretation.

Well, in Islamic belief the other two Abrahamic religions (i.e. Judaism and Christianity) had the same Islamic view of God before they were changed
and corrupted over time.

OK. We agree that Muhammad experienced theophany. That's my answer to your question.

I still don't see how that could have given him the ability to write the Qur'an to be honest.

Let the debate ensue! :angel2:

Sure! Gotta keep the flow steady. :rainbow1:

This is my first actual post on this forum, so pardon me for being very...straightforward.

Well, unlettered doesn't mean linguistically vacant. Muhammad knew a language and dictated the Qur'an, which is pretty easy to come up with when you spend all of two seconds thinking about it.

Seeing as you haven't read the Arabic version, that renders your conclusion about it being easy to come up with void.

It's not even that great of a book, so it's not that crazy to think that some
guy in the desert came up with it over the course of part of his life.

Once again, we're talking about the English version here, right?

Eh...I'm not learning a third language that may not have even been the original language the Qur'an was written until I see some reason to bother.

As for your later points on the eloquence of the Arabic version of the text...so? There is a distinct lack of texts written in Arabic when compared to many, many other languages. Few books are even translated into Arabic.

Even so, poetic or other aesthetic achievement does nothing to support divine inspiration.

It's not just that though. And you have to be fully aware of the extent of that "aesthetic achievement" to judge if something similar can be written by a human or not.

Plato in the original Greek is supposed to be one of the most sublime things ever written, but it doesn't stop Plato from being wrong on so many points.

So? How is that relevant here?

If Joseph Smith wasn't a prophet, where did the book or Mormon come from?

If L. Ron Hubbard wasn't a prophet, where did Dianetics come from?

Are either of those two books anything special in terms of how they are written/composed? And even if they are to what extent?

Didn't Muhammed grow up around and was a merchant for most of his life? Coupled with his fascination for the mystical/spiritual in his free time it's not hard to see how a very socially charming personality could come up with what he did, unlettered or not

Being a merchant/fascination with the mystical/spiritual and/or being socially charming certainly doesn't equal linguistically skilled.

The "but they are just an uncultured peasant!" thing is used a lot in cases where people say they are supposed psychics and mediums. 100% they are always found out to be frauds by the way and use the fact that people think they are dumb to con "smarter" people. Not that I am comparing these cases to Muhammed necessarily but it's what immediately comes to mind.

The difference though is that he has been long known to be unlettered, even before experiencing his first theophany.

As others have pointed out "unlettered" does not equal linguistically challenged. One also has to bear in mind that the Qur'an "came down" in fits and starts over a 23 year period, so it's not like this very clever man did not have a long time to get his story straight and perfect his oration style.

Give anyone 23 years or more to come up with something better or even similar, and I guarantee you they won't be able to do it.

Heck, the current version isn't in the same order as it was originally transmitted. (It is ordered from the longest to the shortest verses.) If you read the Qur'an in its transmission order it loses a lot of its poetic appeal and is more akin to rambling. (Try it, you'll see what I mean.)

This is the English version we're talking about though. That's why I mentioned in the OP that in order to properly judge the Qur'an, you would have to read it in Arabic first.

Unlike others on RF, I simply do not consider Muhammad to be a prophet or a mystic of any particular note. I will grant that he was a natural politician and military genius. The man certainly learned how to "work" a crowd.

And how exactly does being a natural politician or a military genius help you in composing such book?

In my opinion, this is perhaps the most negative aspect to the myth of the Qur'an's divine origin. One idea is that because of the revered status of the Qur'an, that exalted perspective could possibly stop far better writers from writing their tales in Arabic, because if they were able to outdo the Qur'an in eloquence and beauty they would be guilty of the greatest treason.

That probably wouldn't go down to well with the true believers. In this regard, the literary supremacy of the Qur'an is its own self fulfilling myth, as no Arabic writer in their right mind would even try to do it one better.

This is a great way to hobble subsequent creativity.

You know that there's a verse in the Qur'an that challenges anyone who doubts the Qur'an to come up with something better/equal, right? If you think you can do it, why not give it a shot? No one is stopping you.

I'm curious as to how you determined this. How did you determine which style type can be produced by mere humans and which have to be divine in origin? What do you mean by "unlettered"? Based on the replies that I have read so far, I'm asuming that you mean that he was illiterate. But I think the other replies that I have read answer your question the exact way I would if this was a conversation between us two. I don't know that Mohammed was illiterate. Even so, I don't think that he was

linguistically impaired. He may have been illiterate but my impression was that he was something of a polymath and a gifted speaker.

There's a lot of stuff in the Qur'an though which renders it impossible to be written by a human being.

I have read of this argument before and I get the impression that Muslims who use this argument are very much bothered that people are not Muslims like them. The way this argument gets used gives me the impression that Muslims who are fond of this argument and use it as a weapon against unbelievers tend to think that unbelievers owe them an explanation and if an unbeliever has none, well, then that unbeliever has a moral obligation to convert.

If that was true there wouldn't have been nearly as many non-Muslims in Muslim countries.

I want to make something clear: I will never convert to any of the Abrahamic religions or "faiths". I don't owe anyone an explanation. If someone is disappointed with my reponse, well, tough.

I also want to make something clear: I don't even care what you believe or don't believe in. These are purely personal choices and cannot be imposed
on anyone without their will. Why you felt the need to explicitly point that out though, is far beyond me.

The matter of the Quran itself is separate, but relevant: can such a text be considered as inspired by God in the first place? Further, can it stand up to the claims that it is the authentic, immutable and final revelation from the one and only God?

It is clear to me that no, it can't possibly even be seen as evidence of the existence of God. It is far too tied to its time and culture of origin, far too harsh to Atheism, and most of all, it has been misused far too often to lend it credibility in that respect. It has considerable artistic merit, but falls way short of being the ultimate book of the ultimate religion that many people want to see it as being.

Care to explain how exactly it is tied to its time and culture of origin? Also how is it too harsh to atheism?

 

[Storm]

I still don't see how that could have given him the ability to write the Qur'an to be honest.

Why not?

 

[Debater Slayer]

Why not?

Even if it did inform his interpretation of God, it couldn't have given him the ability to transcribe his experience on paper in such an eloquent way.

 

[Storm]

Even if it did inform his interpretation of God, it couldn't have given him the ability to transcribe his experience on paper in such an eloquent way.

While I don't speak Arabic, it's my understanding that the language is inherently poetic, and the culture of the time had a rich poetic tradition.

 

[Caladan]

It is far too tied to its time and culture of origin

Well, what would you want it to be tied to? the axis of the earth? perhaps NY of the year 2011?

far too harsh to Atheism

Again. it is a religious text.

and most of all, it has been misused far too often to lend it credibility in that respect. It has considerable artistic merit, but falls way short of being the ultimate book of the ultimate religion that many people want to see it as being.

Well, you know what the book says. 'there is no compulsion in religion'.
the debates about the inherit divinity of religious texts has become tiring. as well as the debate of whether it is the Christian Bible which is inspired or if it is the Qur'an which is inspired.
I think that by now, we have gained enough knowledge to move to the discussion of the conditions of the early societies which have produced these texts and the qualities of the texts themselves.

 

[no-body]

Being a merchant/fascination with the mystical/spiritual and/or being socially charming certainly doesn't equal linguistically skilled.

The poetry of his recitations could be explained by having an interest in spirituality all his life, you don't have to be able to read to be read spiritual texts to by others and then be influenced by them. He might not have ever put pen to paper but he could talk, and if he was very charming and social as being a merchant all his life implied, his talking could be as skilled as a good novel.

The difference though is that he has been long known to be unlettered, even before experiencing his first theophany.

You're misunderstanding me. The supposed medium and psychics who are unlettered and uncultured are "genuine" too in that sense, but you don't need to be educated to know how to con people. In fact it is actually an asset in most cases because people believe you couldn't possibly be smart enough to dupe them.

 

[Debater Slayer]

While I don't speak Arabic, it's my understanding that the language is inherently poetic, and the culture of the time had a rich poetic tradition.

Well, yes it is but even the best poets at the time were dazzled and unable to compete with the poetic and writing qualities of the Qur'an.

 

[Storm]

Well, yes it is but even the best poets at the time were dazzled and unable to compete with the poetic and writing qualities of the Qur'an.

Well, that doesn't surprise me, given the source of inspiration.

 

[no-body]

Well, yes it is but even the best poets at the time were dazzled and unable to compete with the poetic and writing qualities of the Qur'an.

Do you really think any poet who did match the Quran would be recorded and remembered? You can't judge the subjectivity of such a thing from the perspective of belief, which is why the Korans "challenge" is ridiculous. Anyone who would attempt to outdo it would be biased and anyone judging it would be biased too.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Well, that doesn't surprise me, given the source of inspiration.

Other people as well claim to have had the same theophanies or similar ones to Muhammad's, but none of them came up with something akin to the Qur'an
in terms of poetic quality.

The poetry of his recitations could be explained by having an interest in spirituality all his life, you don't have to be able to read to be read spiritual texts to by others and then be influenced by them. He might not have ever put pen to paper but he could talk, and if he was very charming and social as being a merchant all his life implied, his talking could be as skilled as a good novel.

And so were most of the Arabs at the time, but none of them came with anything close to what the Qur'an was and still is.

You're misunderstanding me. The supposed medium and psychics who are unlettered and uncultured are "genuine" too in that sense, but you don't need to be educated to know how to con people. In fact it is actually an asset in most cases because people believe you couldn't possibly be smart enough to dupe them.

But if he did really con them, where did the Qur'an come from? (echoing the OP).

Do you really think any poet who did match the Quran would be recorded and remembered? You can't judge the subjectivity of such a thing from the perspective of belief, which is why the Korans "challenge" is ridiculous. Anyone who would attempt to outdo it would be biased and anyone judging it would be biased too.

That's why you would have to have unbiased people judge both parties. It's not ridiculous at all when you think about it.

 

[Storm]

Other people as well claim to have had the same theophanies or similar ones to Muhammad's, but none of them came up with something akin to the Qur'an in terms of poetic quality.

So? They lacked the culture of poetry and Muhammad's native genius.

Muhammad's situation was the perfect storm to produce a great mystical text. I can appreciate that without believing God is encapsulated in a book.