How convincing is the Qur'an anyway? In which respects?

[Remté]

What is remarkable about any of them?

• The sun and moon move in the sky.
• It rains sometimes
• Climbing tall mountains leaves you short of breath
• Animals need water to live (especially in the desert)

Anyway it is very easy to find 'miracles' in poetic texts if you send enough time looking and have complete freedom to interpret vague statements in any way you like.

For example, this from Paradise Lost by Milton:

In the Beginning how the Heav'ns and Earth
Rose out of Chaos:

Look how it predicts the big bang! How could someone back then know that space itself emerged from a chaotic pre-big bang state?

Miracle?

• In its rounded course
• We are able to drain it off (water goes round as well)
• It is said climbing high mountains was not available at the time
• That's a strange interpretation since every living thing rewuires water
• You missed the part about pairs. Plants have sexes too

Maybe he read it in the Quran

"Have those who disbelieved not considered that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, then We separated them, and made from water every living thing? Then will they not believe?” 21:30​

 

[Remté]

According to tradition, Muhammad was wealthy, very intelligent, a successful merchant, well travelled. This alone is a bit incongruous with being illiterate.

Not in those days.

 

[Notanumber]

Spin Doctors are nothing new. History tends to be written by the victors.

 

[Augustus]

In its rounded course

Which is visible as they arc across the sky (rounded)

We are able to drain it off (water goes round as well)

Visible to the eye

It is said climbing high mountains was not available at the time

Then how did Hannibal cross the Alps?

People climbed hills in the past, it isn't some modern invention.

That's a strange interpretation since every living thing rewuires water

It's just a basic observation of your environment

You missed the part about pairs. Plants have sexes too

Some do, others have both 'male' and 'female' parts. So this verse is wrong then? (or perhaps it isn't talking about 'plant sexes' at all, just diversity in vegetation)

Maybe he read it in the Quran

"Have those who disbelieved not considered that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, then We separated them, and made from water every living thing? Then will they not believe?” 21:30​

Or maybe it is very easy to fit whatever meaning you like onto vague, poetic statements. See prophecies of Nostradamous, etc.

By definition, any non-miraculous explanation is far more likely to be true than a miraculous one.

 

[Salvador]

Muhammad plagiarized parts of the Bible, so then Islam is a scam.

Muhammad's Plagiarism - WikiIslam

 

[George-ananda]

Theology and history are 2 different subjects though. The sirah belongs to the former category more than the latter.



Islamic orthodoxy was established centuries after the fact. Early traditions are far more diverse on many issues, even ones that are seen as central.

For example, there was debate among early Muslims whether Isaac or Ishmael was the one to be sacrificed yet now it would be blasphemous to say it was Isaac. Same with the 'verse of the cranes'/Satanic verses. Muslim luminary ibn Taymiyya accepted this events as true, yet doing so today would be a death sentence in many countries.



According to tradition, Muhammad was wealthy, very intelligent, a successful merchant, well travelled. This alone is a bit incongruous with being illiterate, given we know numerous companions were literate.

The source of this belief though "al-nabi al-ummi" , you can see here the variety of ways this term is translated al-A`raf 7:157

It can mean gentile, untaught in scripture or illiterate.

Seeing as the expectation was that prophets would be Jews, gentile makes a lot more sense in context. (ummi is related to the term ummah: community of Muslims)

In believing him to have been illiterate I am taking the consensus of historical understanding of the times and Muhammed from objective sources. He was orphaned and went straight to work in his uncle's business. I am not one to believe things just because 'Islam says...." either. As I said elsewhere in this thread, as far as I can see the only sources promoting his literacy seem to be atheist sources with a bias against the quality of the revelation of an illiterate man being a sign of supernatural involvement.

 

[George-ananda]

This discussion has nothing to do with either atheism or materialism. Why would it?

Because as an atheist there would be a natural bias against the idea that the quality of the revelation from an unlettered person is a sign towards supernatural involvement.

 

[Augustus]

In believing him to have been illiterate I am taking the consensus of historical understanding of the times and Muhammed from objective sources.

You are taking the consensus opinion from Islamic theological sources.

The consensus opinion from Christian theologians is that Jesus rose from the dead, would you say this is 'objective' history.

He was orphaned and went straight to work in his uncle's business. I am not one to believe things just because 'Islam says...." either. As I said elsewhere in this thread, as far as I can see the only sources promoting his literacy seem to be atheist sources with a bias against the quality of the revelation of an illiterate man being a sign of supernatural involvement.

Actually it is a position taken by a minority of Muslims, especially Quranists.

Critical history does have a bias against the supernatural though, but if we are talking history rather than theology then it is what it is.

 

[Shad]

the best book ever written is the guru granth sahib (GGS) but sadly it gets ignored by everyone except the sikh's and some hindus. If they say no other book like the quran , then GGS is enough to break the "Surah like it "challenge.

The Sikh in the video also has a video which covered the Quran challenge. It was part of a longer debate video with Dawah Man. I do not remember but I think he used the text you are talking about as a counter argument.

*Around the 40 min mark

 

[George-ananda]

You are taking the consensus opinion from Islamic theological sources.

The consensus opinion from Christian theologians is that Jesus rose from the dead, would you say this is 'objective' history.



Actually it is a position taken by a minority of Muslims, especially Quranists.

Critical history does have a bias against the supernatural though, but if we are talking history rather than theology then it is what it is.

Well, I thought I said I try to listen to all sources consider possible biases and form my best overall judgment.

At one time I was into learning the truth about Mohammed and that was my best judgment. The idea that he was scholarly to the point of writing or reciting a classical literary work like the Quran is not the most reasonable position.

 

[Remté]

Well, I thought I said I try to listen to all sources consider possible biases and form my best overall judgment.

At one time I was into learning the truth about Mohammed and that was my best judgment. The idea that he was scholarly to the point of writing or reciting a classical literary work like the Quran is not the most reasonable position.

True that. It is said the only even a little plausable option of him forging it is by the help of other religious scriptures.

 

[Augustus]

The idea that he was scholarly to the point of writing or reciting a classical literary work like the Quran is not the most reasonable position.

True that. It is said the only even a little plausable option of him forging it is by the help of other religious scriptures.

Why 'forging'? It is a theologically sophisticated text that reflects the Abrahamic religious environment of the late antique Middle East, often being a commentary on religious issues of the day.

If it had appeared in 7th C South America then it would certainly be miraculous. If you looked at the text though, it is clearly of the Late Antique Middle East.

 

[Remté]

Why 'forging'? It is a theologically sophisticated text that reflects the Abrahamic religious environment of the late antique Middle East, often being a commentary on religious issues of the day.

If it had appeared in 7th C South America then it would certainly be miraculous. If you looked at the text though, it is clearly of the Late Antique Middle East.

I mean if he had made it from the other sacred texts as some like to imagine.

Btw The bible claims all world was flooded which science rejects. The Quran doesn't say so.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Because as an atheist there would be a natural bias against the idea that the quality of the revelation from an unlettered person is a sign towards supernatural involvement.

Wait...you believe in the message of the Quran?

Also, I'm a grown man, well aware of my own biases. Your comment is akin (and as incorrect) as me suggesting theists can't do good science.
I'm a history buff, and that's what drive my interest in the origins of Islam. You can only study so much Roman and Persian history before it becomes unavoidable.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

At one time I was into learning the truth about Mohammed and that was my best judgment. The idea that he was scholarly to the point of writing or reciting a classical literary work like the Quran is not the most reasonable position.

Whoever claimed Mohammed wrote the Quran? The claims are normally more around his access and understanding of prior sources...

 

[Remté]

Whoever claimed Mohammed wrote the Quran? The claims are normally more around his access and understanding of prior sources...

What prior sources?

 

[George-ananda]

Wait...you believe in the message of the Quran?

My position is that it is inspired revelation from the Angel Gabriel to Mohammed. I believe the message was supernaturally guided but must be read today in the context of the culture and times.

Also, I'm a grown man, well aware of my own biases. Your comment is akin (and as incorrect) as me suggesting theists can't do good science.
I'm a history buff, and that's what drive my interest in the origins of Islam. You can only study so much Roman and Persian history before it becomes unavoidable.

As much as we try to avoid bias I think we all (myself included) are not perfect at that. So, whenever I hear anyone's position on a controversial issue I like to also consider the religious and political views of the person when I can. It's all information for consideration.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

In believing him to have been illiterate I am taking the consensus of historical understanding of the times and Muhammed from objective sources. He was orphaned and went straight to work in his uncle's business. I am not one to believe things just because 'Islam says...." either. As I said elsewhere in this thread, as far as I can see the only sources promoting his literacy seem to be atheist sources with a bias against the quality of the revelation of an illiterate man being a sign of supernatural involvement.

Any chance you want to name the objective sources?

For me, I'm not working from any particular commentaries, and certainly not anti-Islamic websites.
If you have good source information, I'd be interested. I've found it much easier over the years to find historical information on Christianity, and much, MUCH more difficult to do the same for Islam.

Suffice to say, I remain unconvinced that the Quran indicates he was unlettered, but rather that he was without knowledge of scripture. In either case, if you believe the claim it indicates the miraculous nature of the Quran, so perhaps it is splitting hairs.

Further, I find the use of hadiths to explain Gabriel commanding Mohammed to read as unwarranted should the Quran be perfect as commonly presented. If it's not claimed to be perfect (due to the fallible nature of humans and the limitations of language) then that is less impactful.

Finally, as with Christianity, there appears parrallels with pagan tales in some instances. Even were Mohammed unable to read, this doesn't make him unaware of prior scripture.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

What prior sources?

Various, but commonly Jewish and Christian texts and tales. Please note, I was talking about the common discussion when dealing with whether Mohammed was literate. I'm not claiming he read and copied the Bible, etc. Context is important.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

My position is that it is inspired revelation from the Angel Gabriel to Mohammed. I believe the message was supernaturally guided but must be read today in the context of the culture and times.
As much as we try to avoid bias I think we all (myself included) are not perfect at that. So, whenever I hear anyone's position on a controversial issue I like to also consider the religious and political views of the person when I can. It's all information for consideration.

I didn't say I don't have biases. I said I am aware of my biases. It's quite a different position.