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

[George-ananda]

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

Understand.

 

[Augustus]

Even were Mohammed unable to read, this doesn't make him unaware of prior scripture.

Also of note is that the Quran assumes a high degree of scriptural literacy in its audience as it refers to Bibilical and para-Biblical narratives without explaining them. It assumes familiarity, otherwise such narratives would be explained as they are in Jewish and Cristian texts.

So even if Muhammad was unaware of prior scripture, his audience was.

If you have good source information, I'd be interested.

The idea is discussed in depth here:

Guenther 2002 Muhammad The Illiterate Prophet

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.

If you are interested in any particular topic, I can probably point you in the right direction. Have acquired a lot of stuff over the years.

Made a list of some random stuff years ago:

https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/academic-resources-for-early-islam.183021/

 

[Remté]

Also of note is that the Quran assumes a high degree of scriptural literacy in its audience as it refers to Bibilical and para-Biblical narratives without explaining them. It assumes familiarity, otherwise such narratives would be explained as they are in Jewish and Cristian texts.

So even if Muhammad was unaware of prior scripture, his audience was.
/

The strories are from history. And Muhammad explained verses.

 

[Augustus]

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

Not sure it is 'made from other texts', it simply reflects a specific religious environment and utilises inter and metatextual references to Biblical and para-Biblical narratives.

The strories are from history. And Muhammad explained verses.

Biblical narratives that are utilised are not explained, characters referred to are not introduced, etc. This even caused problems for later exegetes who lacked familiarity with the Biblical stories:

Another case is the Qur’an’s reference to the laughter of Sarah (a name that does not appear in the text; the only woman given a name in the Qur’an is Mary). In Genesis, Sarah laughs after she hears the annunciation of Isaac’s birth, but the Qur’an refers to her laughter first. Accordingly, Muslim commentators struggle to explain why she laughed. One famous commentator, the tenth-century al-Tabari, wonders if she laughed out of frustration when the visitors would not eat the food she prepared or if she laughed out of relief when she realized that the visitors did not have the habits of the Sodomites. Yet the reader who knows the Bible will understand that Sarah laughed out of surprise at the promise of a son in her old age, even if the Qur’an—for the sake of a rhyme in Arabic—reports these events in reverse order.

In such cases the Qur’an seems to count on its audience’s knowledge of the Bible. Indeed, by taking a liberty with the order of the story, the Qur’an seems utterly confident in that knowledge. Reading the Qur’an Through the Bible | Gabriel Said Reynolds

 

[FearGod]

There is a thread by @Debater Slayer elsewhere discussing the literary merits of the Qur'an.

However, there is a surprisingly predictable recurrence of claims about the excellence of the Qur'an in other respects.

It is surprising because, to the best of my knowledge, they consistently turn out to be questionable at best, despite the passion and insistence of so many.

Perhaps the best example of how bizarre those claims are is the anecdote of how the Qur'an predicts, apparently accurately by the perception of some, that Makkah is somehow "the center of Earth".

There is also the anecdote told in the Qur'an itself tells about how hard it presumably is to create a text of comparable merit. Needless to say, that is ultimately pure self-promotion with nothing substantial to show for it.

Challenge of the Quran - Wikipedia

Far as religious doctrine go, I must say that the Qur'an is if anything deplorable. Its doctrine is both derivative, self-limiting and seriously misguided, to the point that to this day it insists on the repudiation of LGBT and the defense of "proper" ways for husbands to physically hit their wives.

Then there is the sheer inability of the Qur'an to even acknowledge properly the nature and existence of either atheism or non-Abrahamic religion. Or the necessity of freedom of belief.

All in all, a pretty limited and dismaying text, raised by the sincere if misguided effort of so very many to a role that it can't ever possibly sustain.

Yet the claims that the Qur'an is of "remarkable accuracy" or admirable in other ways persist.

Do we have any true indication that such is or could conceivably be the case?

I love the quran, you won't understand how great it's and I don't need
to make any effort to explain it for you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I love the quran, you won't understand how great it's and I don't need
to make any effort to explain it for you.

That is the claim of someone that knows he has nothing.

 

[FearGod]

That is the claim of someone that knows he has nothing.

You think so.

 

[LuisDantas]

I love the quran, you won't understand how great it's and I don't need
to make any effort to explain it for you.

No. You do not need to convince me that you know what you are talking about.

 

[FearGod]

No. You do not need to convince me that you know what you are talking about.

Yes I know what you don't know.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You think so.

I know so. Any person that is supposedly in a debate and runs away has in effect admitted that he has nothing. Apologetics does not work on people whose eyes have been opened.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes I know what you don't know.

I see that another is on to you. No one is stopping you from supporting your claims.

You claimed to know. Knowledge is demonstrable. If you really do know you can support your beliefs. If all you have are beliefs you will not be able to do so.

 

[LuisDantas]

It won't come. It can't come. The Qur'an is just dogma.

 

[Remté]

It won't come. It can't come. The Qur'an is just dogma.

What are you saying?

 

[FearGod]

It won't come. It can't come. The Qur'an is just dogma.

To me it's the truth, you believe that God doesn't exist, does it
mean that you're right, no and never.

 

[Subduction Zone]

To me it's the truth, you believe that God doesn't exist, does it
mean that you're right, no and never.

There is a difference between saying that one does not believe in something and saying that one believes that something does not exist. The rational approach to beliefs is not to believe something exists until sufficient rational evidence is given for that object's existence.

 

[FearGod]

There is a difference between saying that one does not believe in something and saying that one believes that something does not exist. The rational approach to beliefs is not to believe something exists until sufficient rational evidence is given for that object's existence.

Not having an evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist, a hundred years
ago we don't know that bacteria exists, not knowing doesn't mean
that the thing doesn't exist.

For me I know that God exists, but I don't rely in a microscope to know that God exists.

 

[Remté]

There is a difference between saying that one does not believe in something and saying that one believes that something does not exist.

Only a matter of laying stress on certain wording.

A rational approach to beliefs?

Are you sure you believe you are the one to decide what is rational? You must think yourself very wise.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not having an evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist, a hundred years
ago we don't know that bacteria exists, not knowing doesn't mean
that the thing doesn't exist.

For me I know that God exists, but I don't rely in a microscope to know that God exists.

I see that you do not understand the difference.

And I doubt if you "know" that God exists. You appear to only have belief. Knowledge is demonstrable and to date you have not been able to show that your God exists at all.

Not believing in something is not a belief that those things do not exist. A hundred years before bacteria were discovered no one believed that they existed. But then no one believed that they did not exist either since the concept did not even exist. Most atheists are agnostics. That means only that they lack a belief in a god or gods. The reason that they lack that belief is because insufficient evidence exists for a rational belief in a god. That is not saying that god does not exist. Now I can refute specific versions of "God". The "God" of the fundamentalist can be shown not to exist. That is rather low hanging fruit I am not going to claim that I can prove that all gods do not exist. But since I am not claiming that gods do not exist the burden of proof is not upon me.

The burden of proof is always on those making a positive statement. If you claim that your God exists then you are placing a burden of proof upon yourself.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Only a matter of laying stress on certain wording.

A rational approach to beliefs?

Are you sure you believe you are the one to decide what is rational? You must think yourself very wise.

I am not the only one. There are general guidelines to rationality. I do not have to rely on myself. But yes, I am probably wiser than most of the theists here. Most theism is simply a false belief. We can see that because there are so many different variations and only one can be right. That means that no matter what, with so many people in so many different religions, most have to be wrong. And it appears that most likely that they are all wrong.

 

[Remté]

I am not the only one. There are general guidelines to rationality. I do not have to rely on myself. But yes, I am probably wiser than most of the theists here. Most theism is simply a false belief. We can see that because there are so many different variations and only one can be right. That means that no matter what, with so many people in so many different religions, most have to be wrong. And it appears that most likely that they are all wrong.

Wrong about what?