Quran Challenge

[KWED]

I keep seeing repeated claims by apologists that the Quran is a miraculous work that could not possibly be the product of the human mind.
I am sceptical of this and therefore post the following challenge...

Present a single passage from the Quran that makes more sense as the work of an omniscient, omnipotent, creator of the universe, supernatural being - than it does as the work of 7th century Arabs (and explain why).

I look forward to your responses.

 

[Jedster]

@KWED

This is an interesting video(by a Sikh group), which wasn't intended to be a challenge to the Quran, but is close in result. here is part of the introduction

"Basics of Sikhi organised the Urban Turban Sikhi Awareness event in Hounslow. Imran Ibn Mansur Khan (AKA Dawah Man) from Islam Hounslow approached us for a short Q&A. It lasted one hour and was filmed. Note, we were not looking to debate them and neither are we interested in criticising Islam or trying to point out flaws or even trying to prove Sikhi to them. Therefore, most of the conversation is revolved around the questions by Brother Imran (Dawah Man)."

Unfortunately, the Sikh guy has since died.

ETA:The conversation drifts into a challenge at 40 minutes.

 

[GURSIKH]

@KWED

This is an interesting video(by a Sikh group), which wasn't intended to be a challenge to the Quaran, but is close in result. here is part of the introduction

"Basics of Sikhi organised the Urban Turban Sikhi Awareness event in Hounslow. Imran Ibn Mansur Khan (AKA Dawah Man) from Islam Hounslow approached us for a short Q&A. It lasted one hour and was filmed. Note, we were not looking to debate them and neither are we interested in criticising Islam or trying to point out flaws or even trying to prove Sikhi to them. Therefore, most of the conversation is revolved around the questions by Brother Imran (Dawah Man)."

Unfortunately, the Sikh guy has since died.

ETA:The conversation drifts into a challenge at 40 minutes.

In the above video Muslim Guy is mentioning about some "rhetorical devices" present in Quran. Can some Muslim elaborate on it ?

 

[Link]

I keep seeing repeated claims by apologists that the Quran is a miraculous work that could not possibly be the product of the human mind.
I am sceptical of this and therefore post the following challenge...

Present a single passage from the Quran that makes more sense as the work of an omniscient, omnipotent, creator of the universe, supernatural being - than it does as the work of 7th century Arabs.

I look forward to your responses.

Phrases themselves are eloquent, but not alone. With respect to the Chapter they are in. And the chapter is with respect to the whole book.

There are subtle eloquent features, that add up, and then you realize it's from God based on eloquence.

Aside from that, is every chapter has a style. The style and how it sounds in Arabic is a miracle along with the meaning.

If you isolate a verse and don't explain it with respect to chapter or Quran as a whole, you are being unfair. If you see every verse in it's place with respect to Quran, you will witness a miracle.

The sound and how beautiful is also goes with the flow of that chapter and how the chapter sounds.

 

[Link]

Take "By the name of God..." in Surah Fatiha. By itself it can be work of anyone.

But with how Quran has explained the name and face of God to be, it's a miracle. And with all the verses elaborating on the name of God in the beginning of chapters, it becomes highly eloquent and becomes the highest and most eloquent verse in Quran.

This is because of it's place in Salah as well.

 

[Birdnest]

Can I post three?

23:12 "We created man out of the extract of clay," 23:13 "Then We placed him as a sperm-drop in a firm lodging." 23:14 "then We made this drop into a clot, then We made the clot into a lump, then We made the lump into bones, then We clothed the bones with flesh, and then We caused it to grow into another creation. Thus Most Blessed is Allah, the Best of all those that create."

This does require some elaboration regarding the translation. I might do that later.

 

[Link]

This on the way to climax in flow in Quran:

وَقَالَ لَهُمْ نَبِيُّهُمْ إِنَّ اللَّهَ قَدْ بَعَثَ لَكُمْ طَالُوتَ مَلِكًا ۚ قَالُوا أَنَّىٰ يَكُونُ لَهُ الْمُلْكُ عَلَيْنَا وَنَحْنُ أَحَقُّ بِالْمُلْكِ مِنْهُ وَلَمْ يُؤْتَ سَعَةً مِنَ الْمَالِ ۚ قَالَ إِنَّ اللَّهَ اصْطَفَاهُ عَلَيْكُمْ وَزَادَهُ بَسْطَةً فِي الْعِلْمِ وَالْجِسْمِ ۖ وَاللَّهُ يُؤْتِي مُلْكَهُ مَنْ يَشَاءُ ۚ وَاللَّهُ وَاسِعٌ عَلِيمٌ | And their prophet said to them, ‘Allah has appointed Talut (Saul) as king for you.’ They said, ‘How can he have kingship over us, when we have a greater right to kingship than him, as he has not been given ample wealth?’ He said, ‘Indeed Allah has chosen him over you, and enhanced him vastly in knowledge and physique, and Allah gives His authority to whomever He wishes, and Allah is all-bounteous, all-knowing.’ | Al-Baqara : 247

وَقَالَ لَهُمْ نَبِيُّهُمْ إِنَّ آيَةَ مُلْكِهِ أَنْ يَأْتِيَكُمُ التَّابُوتُ فِيهِ سَكِينَةٌ مِنْ رَبِّكُمْ وَبَقِيَّةٌ مِمَّا تَرَكَ آلُ مُوسَىٰ وَآلُ هَارُونَ تَحْمِلُهُ الْمَلَائِكَةُ ۚ إِنَّ فِي ذَٰلِكَ لَآيَةً لَكُمْ إِنْ كُنْتُمْ مُؤْمِنِينَ | Their prophet said to them, ‘Indeed the sign of his kingship shall be that the Ark will come to you, bearing tranquility from your Lord and the remainder of what has been left by the House of Moses and the House of Aaron, carried by the angels. There is indeed a sign in that for you, should you be faithful.’ | Al-Baqara : 248

It's building up to Ayatul Kursi which is the peak of Quran.

If you understand these verses with respect to Islam and the sectarian differences (and how this verse solves it), and how Bible has been corrupted per Quran, it's very eloquent and very to the point.

It also shows the superiority of theocracy over an oligarchy. There is no such thing as a real democracy in the world right now, only oligarchies claiming to be democracies but there is one country which is a theocracy and that country is better then the oligarchies.

 

[Link]

This on the way to climax in flow in Quran:

وَقَالَ لَهُمْ نَبِيُّهُمْ إِنَّ اللَّهَ قَدْ بَعَثَ لَكُمْ طَالُوتَ مَلِكًا ۚ قَالُوا أَنَّىٰ يَكُونُ لَهُ الْمُلْكُ عَلَيْنَا وَنَحْنُ أَحَقُّ بِالْمُلْكِ مِنْهُ وَلَمْ يُؤْتَ سَعَةً مِنَ الْمَالِ ۚ قَالَ إِنَّ اللَّهَ اصْطَفَاهُ عَلَيْكُمْ وَزَادَهُ بَسْطَةً فِي الْعِلْمِ وَالْجِسْمِ ۖ وَاللَّهُ يُؤْتِي مُلْكَهُ مَنْ يَشَاءُ ۚ وَاللَّهُ وَاسِعٌ عَلِيمٌ | And their prophet said to them, ‘Allah has appointed Talut (Saul) as king for you.’ They said, ‘How can he have kingship over us, when we have a greater right to kingship than him, as he has not been given ample wealth?’ He said, ‘Indeed Allah has chosen him over you, and enhanced him vastly in knowledge and physique, and Allah gives His authority to whomever He wishes, and Allah is all-bounteous, all-knowing.’ | Al-Baqara : 247

وَقَالَ لَهُمْ نَبِيُّهُمْ إِنَّ آيَةَ مُلْكِهِ أَنْ يَأْتِيَكُمُ التَّابُوتُ فِيهِ سَكِينَةٌ مِنْ رَبِّكُمْ وَبَقِيَّةٌ مِمَّا تَرَكَ آلُ مُوسَىٰ وَآلُ هَارُونَ تَحْمِلُهُ الْمَلَائِكَةُ ۚ إِنَّ فِي ذَٰلِكَ لَآيَةً لَكُمْ إِنْ كُنْتُمْ مُؤْمِنِينَ | Their prophet said to them, ‘Indeed the sign of his kingship shall be that the Ark will come to you, bearing tranquility from your Lord and the remainder of what has been left by the House of Moses and the House of Aaron, carried by the angels. There is indeed a sign in that for you, should you be faithful.’ | Al-Baqara : 248

It's building up to Ayatul Kursi which is the peak of Quran.

If you understand these verses with respect to Islam and the sectarian differences (and how this verse solves it), and how Bible has been corrupted per Quran, it's very eloquent and very to the point.

It also shows the superiority of theocracy over an oligarchy. There is no such thing as a real democracy in the world right now, only oligarchies claiming to be democracies but there is one country which is a theocracy and that country is better then the oligarchies.

With flow of Quran, we see God gives his authority to who he pleases, and that his Prophets and Messengers were the True Kings on earth.

We see also that in absence of a king appointed by God, that those with higher knowledge and who bring the tranquil teachings of the family of Mohammad and the family of Ali which is one family like the family of Musa and family of Haroun, are the true authorities and rulers to be obeyed and who have most right to govern.

Not cursed fools that people just vote for but are ignorant of God's light and his justice. Vote for but are put in place of course by the money trail that makes it really an oligarchy.

 

[Link]

Some more points on this verse:

It shows first criteria is that God has chosen him above. In this time, we should foremost look to those of us who are morally superior.

Then comes vastness in knowledge and capability in running affairs.

Then the fact that God gives his authority to who he pleases and we should submit to his choice.

The family of Aaron is the family of Moses and vice versa, and they were the true kings who Authority of God was to be found in Bani-Israel but most importantly, it's phrase in a way, that people who bring the tranquility of their teachings when such leaders are not present, are better fit to lead and govern humans.

The Angels carried the Tabut physically, but they also carry light of the teachings. The light will point us to who to follow.

In these times, we should see with mental clarity who has higher knowledge and who brings back the tranquil teachings of Ahlulbayt (a) till the king appointed by God returns. These are who should run Islamic government.

Those two verses speaks volumes and volumes. It shows there was an Ahlulbayt in bani-Israel as well.

It also shows wisdom of successorship in Islam in all times, and the wisdom of successors to Mohammad (s).

 

[KWED]

In the above video Muslim Guy is mentioning about some "rhetorical devices" present in Quran. Can some Muslim elaborate on it ?

The "rhetorical devices" claim seems to be saying that it couldn't have been written by an illiterate person with no knowledge of such rhetorical devices, rather than they are beyond the ability of the human mind. The simple fact that they are recognisable as rhetorical devices that have been used by human writers elsewhere confirms this.

This then leads to the secondary claim that the Muhammad was illiterate and with no knowledge of such rhetorical devices so it was beyond his capability (note that this is not a claim about the Quran itself).

Firstly, it is not clear that Muhammad was illiterate and with no knowledge of rhetorical devices. His background and early life would suggest literacy a distinct possibility (he was from a privileged and powerful family, he had a job running Mecca's largest trading empire travelling the length and breadth of the Arabian peninsula and beyond).
The reference in the Quran to him being illiterate doesn't actually say that, it says he was "ummi" (without scripture) which can be translated as not following a religious text. This makes more sense in the context of its use in other passages that "illiterate".
Pre-Islamic Arabia had a long and rich tradition of epic poetry and storytelling. There were festivals where people would come long distances to listen to renowned exponents compete and compete works.
Some of Muhammad's companions were learned people who had studied at places like the famous 'university' and Gundeshapur.

Second, even if it was beyond one person's ability it was certainly not beyond anyone's ability, so the claim relies on the idea that no one could possibly have assisted Muhammad, or the people who later wrote down his speeches, in the composition. This is a clearly unreasonable assertion.

Third, the version of the Quran in current circulation was compiled and codified some years after Muhammad's death by Caliph Uthman, who had all unapproved versions destroyed. This was another opportunity for "tweaking" of the content.

Given all this, claiming that certain recognisable rhetorical devices are beyond the capability of 7th century Arabs is somewhat far-fetched.

Finally, it assumes that the most miraculous form of communication that an omniscient and omnipotent god could come up with was some recognisable rhetorical devices.

 

[KWED]

Can I post three?

Sure

23:12 "We created man out of the extract of clay,"

1. It is incorrect. Clay is predominantly aluminium and silica, two elements almost completely absent from the human body. An omni-everything god would know that. (Claims that "clay" actually means "mud" or "earth" can be dismissed as 55:14 specifically says "potter's clay")
2. It also says "We created every living thing from water", so it is contradictory.
3. There were many pre-Islamic cultures that use the creation from clay myth, so it was an idea already in circulation.
4. If god had intended to provide a verse that made sense to 7th century Arabs but also contains accurate scientific information, he should have used something like "created from wood/limestone" (carbon/calcium, both essential and major components of the human body).

23:13 "Then We placed him as a sperm-drop in a firm lodging." 23:14 "then We made this drop into a clot, then We made the clot into a lump, then We made the lump into bones, then We clothed the bones with flesh, and then We caused it to grow into another creation. Thus Most Blessed is Allah, the Best of all those that create."

The description of human embryology in the Quran is inaccurate and incomplete. It makes no mention of the female egg, and it gets the order and process wrong. "Then we clothed the bones in flesh". Bones form after and within the flesh.
2. This description is no more accurate than those of earlier philosophers like Aristotle or Galen. (One of Muhammad's companions had studied medicine at Gundeshapur, when such works were taught).

So, given that the passage is both flawed and already known, it makes more sense as the work of 7th century Arabs than an omni-everything god.

This does require some elaboration regarding the translation. I might do that later.

Yes, I have seen this "elaboration" where extra meanings and spurious definitions are added to the original text.

BTW, three consecutive "verses" is one "passage".

 

[KWED]

x

I understand that you think the Quran is a wonderful book containing much eloquence, but that opinion alone is not a sign of divine authorship.
Nothing you have mentioned is beyond the power of someone from 7th century Arabia.

Feel free to have another go, but this time cite one passage and then explain how it is beyond the capability of a 7th century Arab mind, in the context of existing knowledge and could only have been created by an omniscient, omnipotent god.

Note: If you want to write multiple essays about how you think the Quran is an eloquent piece of literature, there are threads specifically for that, but that is not what this thread is for. Thanks.

 

[WonderingWorrier]

I keep seeing repeated claims by apologists that the Quran is a miraculous work that could not possibly be the product of the human mind.
I am sceptical of this and therefore post the following challenge...

Present a single passage from the Quran that makes more sense as the work of an omniscient, omnipotent, creator of the universe, supernatural being - than it does as the work of 7th century Arabs.

I look forward to your responses.

Here is one for you:
"Then the Messenger will say: "O my Lord! Truly my people took this Quran for just foolish nonsense."
Quran 25:30
.

 

[KWED]

@KWEDETA:The conversation drifts into a challenge at 40 minutes.

His challenge is flawed from the outset. He claims it is an "objective test", but it is actually entirely subjective and determined by confirmation bias, "write something better".
Who is to be the judge of whether something is "better"?
The Muslim, whose very faith depends on every challenger failing?
The challenger, who by definition believes he has written something better, or he wouldn't present it as such?

It is completely meaningless as a challenge, and the Sikh guy easily explains that. Dawah Man was clearly flustered.

 

[KWED]

Here is one for you:
"Then the Messenger will say: "O my Lord! Truly my people took this Quran for just foolish nonsense."
Quran 25:30.

OK.
Why does that make more sense as the work of an omniscient, omnipotent god than as the work of 7th century Arabs?

All it is saying is that some of the people Muhammad is preaching to will dismiss his message. That has happened to every prophet, messenger, leader, etc, over history. Muhammad would have seen it happening himself during his life. It is simply stating an obvious and observable fact from the real world.

 

[WonderingWorrier]

OK.
Why does that make more sense as the work of an omniscient, omnipotent god than as the work of 7th century Arabs?

All it is saying is that some of the people Muhammad is preaching to will dismiss his message. That has happened to every prophet, messenger, leader, etc, over history. Muhammad would have seen it happening himself during his life. It is simply stating an obvious and observable fact from the real world.

Perhaps there is a point to that.

Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 1 Corinthians 1:25

Go from the presence of a foolish man, when thou perceivest not in him the lips of knowledge. Proverbs 14:7

He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

 

[KWED]

Perhaps there is a point to that.

Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 1 Corinthians 1:25

Go from the presence of a foolish man, when thou perceivest not in him the lips of knowledge. Proverbs 14:7

He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

You are just quoting random verses now. None of it is even remotely beyond the capability of the human mind to produce.

 

[WonderingWorrier]

You are just quoting random verses now. None of it is even remotely beyond the capability of the human mind to produce.

It shows the words are not for everyone to hear.
But there is clearly logic and reason behind them.

Take clay as an example.

We are clay.
We are the potters clay.
Being molded into different shapes and sizes. Diversity.

But now, O Lord, thou art our father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand. Isaiah 64:8


And we are being sorted into three different classes.

Brass - Silver - Gold


Four directions. Three classes.

South - North - West - East
Iron - Brass - Silver - Gold

Consider this image and how the metals change at higher levels:

"This image's head was of fine gold, his breast and his arms of silver, his belly and his thighs of brass, His legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of clay. Daniel 2:32-33.


We are the clay in the iron.

Iron is the Earth. The first heaven above the Earth is Brass, second is silver, third is gold.

As it clearly says:
And thy heaven that is over thy head shall be brass, and the earth that is under thee shall be iron. Deuteronomy 28:23


So the Earth and the heavens is the treasury:

But all the silver, and gold, and vessels of brass and iron, are consecrated unto the Lord: they shall come into the treasury of the Lord. Joshua 6:19


Jesus understood this. He shows it:
Your gold and silver is cankered; and the rust of them shall be a witness against you, and shall eat your flesh as it were fire. Ye have heaped treasure together for the last days. James 5:3

The gold and silver being collected by the churches is Earthly and not heavenly.
The Earthly gold and silver is just iron (Earthly), so it rusts.

The Earthly gold and silver leads to thieves and corruption:

They did not understand the true treasure. Heavenly treasure.

Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:

But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: Matthew 6:19-20



They did not see their gold and silver turn rusty.

Can you see it?

 

[KWED]

It shows the words are not for everyone to hear.

Why is the concept of hidden or double meanings beyond the capability of the human mind?

But there is clearly logic and reason behind them.

This also applies to pretty much every piece of literature - all produced by the human mind.

Take clay as an example.
We are clay.
We are the potters clay.
Being molded into different shapes and sizes. Diversity.

This was a concept that was already widely used, long before the Quran was written. It is clearly the work of the human mind.

I don't think you understand the nature of this challenge.
It is not to present your opinion on what you think the Quran might mean. It is for you to present a passage that is beyond the capability of 7th century Arabs to write.

 

[WonderingWorrier]

Why is the concept of hidden or double meanings beyond the capability of the human mind?

This also applies to pretty much every piece of literature - all produced by the human mind.

This was a concept that was already widely used, long before the Quran was written. It is clearly the work of the human mind.

I don't think you understand the nature of this challenge.
It is not to present your opinion on what you think the Quran might mean. It is for you to present a passage that is beyond the capability of 7th century Arabs to write.

It is said that we would be judged according to our ways.

We are being spoken to according to our ways.