• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Quran Criticism - God's word or manmade?

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
And some say the Quran has seven layers of meanings depending on the reader.
Thanks, makes sense to me, but I never heard that before. But I can see multiple layers indeed

As to the origin, it makes sense to me that it came from Muhammad's speech but then was organized and perhaps modified by the people who created the current form we know.
Yes, it would surprise me if it was exactly the same as what God spoke. And there were wars going on, so certain verses I understand in this context
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
Thats what you believe. You just made a faith statement. What you stated is not based on research. Do you understand?

I didnt ask for research that people have an innate belief. I asked if YOU have any research to back up your claim that this belief of the divine etc etc are indoctrinated only. Nothing more, nothing else. Any research?
I define "faith" as a belief without evidence. The evidence I offered is massive and obvious. What you are doing is raising the bar for evidence impossibly high (It must be research or it doesn't count!) in order to jump to your "faith" conclusion.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
I define "faith" as a belief without evidence.

Exactly what you have Joe. Thats what I said. Sorry but though you discuss with decency, you did not speak with any evidence. You say "massive" but there was none. Thus, it is absolutely a faith statement you made.

See, this is a human condition you are speaking about. You are claiming that people are "ONLY" indoctrinated by parents to believe in a divine being or an afterlife. So, evidence for this kind of claim has to be provided by research. There is no other way. I can't believe you said I am raising the bar by asking for evidence/research. Without evidence, how could a person make such statements unless its purely faith without evidence? Its blind belief.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
Which internal contradiction are you referring to? Please state the verse, and what is contradicting.
Two easy examples:

Quran said in 8:61, “And if they incline to peace, then incline to it [also] and rely upon Allah. Indeed, it is He who is the Hearing, the Knowing”.

‘And kill them wherever you find them…’ Quran 2:191

AND

Is Religion Compulsive Or Is It Not?
Quran 02: 256 There is no Compulsion in religion….

Quran 9: 5 Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolators wherever ye find them and take them captive, and besiege them and prepare for them each ambush….

Quran 47: 4 When you meet the unbelievers in the Jihad strike off their heads….
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Two easy examples:

Quran said in 8:61, “And if they incline to peace, then incline to it [also] and rely upon Allah. Indeed, it is He who is the Hearing, the Knowing”.

‘And kill them wherever you find them…’ Quran 2:191

AND

Is Religion Compulsive Or Is It Not?
Quran 02: 256 There is no Compulsion in religion….

Quran 9: 5 Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolators wherever ye find them and take them captive, and besiege them and prepare for them each ambush….

Quran 47: 4 When you meet the unbelievers in the Jihad strike off their heads….

See, when people cherry pick this is what happens.

You quoted 2:191 right? Read the next verse mate. At least.

2:192 If they cease, then God is Forgiving, Compassionate.
2:193 Fight them so there is no more persecution, and so that the system is God's. If they cease, then there will be no aggression except against the wicked.

Please go to that same website, and cherry pick some more and cut and paste them as we usually see of those who pretend they have read and done their analysis. Its pathetic.

And why did your sentence in the verse 47:4 lie about the verse blatantly mate? Loll. How cheap is that website you cut and pasted this can be?? Where is the word "Jihad" in that verse? Where does it say "head"? Where does it say "off"? Lie after lie mate. Someone lied to you. ;)

Please. do some real reading, not go to silly and bogus sources and think "I've done it". No good.
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
Exactly what you have Joe. Thats what I said. Sorry but though you discuss with decency, you did not speak with any evidence. You say "massive" but there was none. Thus, it is absolutely a faith statement you made.

See, this is a human condition you are speaking about. You are claiming that people are "ONLY" indoctrinated by parents to believe in a divine being or an afterlife. So, evidence for this kind of claim has to be provided by research. There is no other way. I can't believe you said I am raising the bar by asking for evidence/research. Without evidence, how could a person make such statements unless its purely faith without evidence? Its blind belief.
The line of your post I put in bold is a false representation of my claim which was: "An Innate belief? No, I don't have any evidence that people are born with that belief."

I doubt that such a belief is innate because there's no evidence of it. However, I can't prove a negative.On the other hand, the evidence of the traditional indoctrination is massive and obvious. It matters not at all to me if you disagree on this point. I post my arguments for unbiased readers should any happen by.
 
Last edited:

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
See, when people cherry pick this is what happens.

You quoted 2:191 right? Read the next verse mate. At least.

2:192 If they cease, then God is Forgiving, Compassionate.
2:193 Fight them so there is no more persecution, and so that the system is God's. If they cease, then there will be no aggression except against the wicked.

Please go to that same website, and cherry pick some more and cut and paste them as we usually see of those who pretend they have read and done their analysis. Its pathetic.

And why did your sentence in the verse 47:4 lie about the verse blatantly mate? Loll. How cheap is that website you cut and pasted this can be?? Where is the word "Jihad" in that verse? Where does it say "head"? Where does it say "off"? Lie after lie mate. Someone lied to you. ;)

Please. do some real reading, not go to silly and bogus sources and think "I've done it". No good.

I'm not going to get into an exegesis battle with you nor respond to your scurrilous and false accusations about my knowledge except to note that you did not like the translation of 47:4 I found and called a deliberate lie in my part which is utterly false.

47:4

Khalifa If you encounter (in war) those who disbelieve, you may strike the necks. If you take them as captives you may set them free or ransom them, until the war ends. Had GOD willed, He could have granted you victory, without war. But He thus tests you by one another. As for those who get killed in the cause of GOD, He will never put their sacrifice to waste.

Yusuf Ali Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been God's Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of God,- He will never let their deeds be lost.

Pickthal Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them, then making fast of bonds; and afterward either grace or ransom till the war lay down its burdens. That (is the ordinance). And if Allah willed He could have punished them (without you) but (thus it is ordained) that He may try some of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He rendereth not their actions vain.

Shakir So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates. That (shall be so); and if Allah had pleased He would certainly have exacted what is due from them, but that He may try some of you by means of others; and (as for) those who are slain in the way of Allah, He will by no means allow their deeds to perish.

Sher Ali And when you meet in regular battle those who disbelieve, smite their necks; and, when you have overcome them, by causing great slaughter among them, bind fast the fetters - then afterwards either release them as a favour or by taking ransom - until the war lays down its burdens. That is the ordinance. And if Allah had so pleased, HE could have punished them Himself, but HE has willed that HE may try some of you by others. And those who are killed in the way of Allah - HE will never render their works vain.

"Progressive Muslims" So, if you encounter those who have rejected, then strike their formation until you capture them, then bind them securely. Then you may either set them free or ransom them, until the war ends. And had God willed, He alone could have beaten them, but He thus tests you by one another. As for those who get killed in the cause of God, He will never let their deeds be put to waste.

Muhammad Sarwar: If you encounter the disbelievers in a battle, strike-off their heads. Take them as captives when they are defeated. Then you may set them free as a favor to them, with or without a ransom, when the battle is over. This is the Law. Had God wanted, He could have granted them (unbelievers) victory, but He wants to test you through each other. The deeds of those who are killed for the cause of God will never be without virtuous results.

Mohsin Khan: So, when you meet (in fight Jihad in Allah's Cause), those who disbelieve smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives). Thereafter (is the time) either for generosity (i.e. free them without ransom), or ransom (according to what benefits Islam), until the war lays down its burden. Thus [you are ordered by Allah to continue in carrying out Jihad against the disbelievers till they embrace Islam (i.e. are saved from the punishment in the Hell-fire) or at least come under your protection], but if it had been Allah's Will, He Himself could certainly have punished them (without you). But (He lets you fight), in order to test you, some with others. But those who are killed in the Way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost,

Arberry: When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks, then, when you have made wide slaughter among them, tie fast the bonds; then set them free, either by grace or ransom, till the war lays down its loads. So it shall be; and if God had willed, He would have avenged Himself upon them; but that He may try some of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of God, He will not send their works astray.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
I'm not going to get into an exegesis battle with you nor respond to your scurrilous and false accusations about my knowledge except to note that you did not like the translation of 47:4 I found and called a deliberate lie in my part which is utterly false.

47:4

Khalifa If you encounter (in war) those who disbelieve, you may strike the necks. If you take them as captives you may set them free or ransom them, until the war ends. Had GOD willed, He could have granted you victory, without war. But He thus tests you by one another. As for those who get killed in the cause of GOD, He will never put their sacrifice to waste.

Yusuf Ali Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been God's Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of God,- He will never let their deeds be lost.

Pickthal Now when ye meet in battle those who disbelieve, then it is smiting of the necks until, when ye have routed them, then making fast of bonds; and afterward either grace or ransom till the war lay down its burdens. That (is the ordinance). And if Allah willed He could have punished them (without you) but (thus it is ordained) that He may try some of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He rendereth not their actions vain.

Shakir So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates. That (shall be so); and if Allah had pleased He would certainly have exacted what is due from them, but that He may try some of you by means of others; and (as for) those who are slain in the way of Allah, He will by no means allow their deeds to perish.

Sher Ali And when you meet in regular battle those who disbelieve, smite their necks; and, when you have overcome them, by causing great slaughter among them, bind fast the fetters - then afterwards either release them as a favour or by taking ransom - until the war lays down its burdens. That is the ordinance. And if Allah had so pleased, HE could have punished them Himself, but HE has willed that HE may try some of you by others. And those who are killed in the way of Allah - HE will never render their works vain.

"Progressive Muslims" So, if you encounter those who have rejected, then strike their formation until you capture them, then bind them securely. Then you may either set them free or ransom them, until the war ends. And had God willed, He alone could have beaten them, but He thus tests you by one another. As for those who get killed in the cause of God, He will never let their deeds be put to waste.

Muhammad Sarwar: If you encounter the disbelievers in a battle, strike-off their heads. Take them as captives when they are defeated. Then you may set them free as a favor to them, with or without a ransom, when the battle is over. This is the Law. Had God wanted, He could have granted them (unbelievers) victory, but He wants to test you through each other. The deeds of those who are killed for the cause of God will never be without virtuous results.

Mohsin Khan: So, when you meet (in fight Jihad in Allah's Cause), those who disbelieve smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives). Thereafter (is the time) either for generosity (i.e. free them without ransom), or ransom (according to what benefits Islam), until the war lays down its burden. Thus [you are ordered by Allah to continue in carrying out Jihad against the disbelievers till they embrace Islam (i.e. are saved from the punishment in the Hell-fire) or at least come under your protection], but if it had been Allah's Will, He Himself could certainly have punished them (without you). But (He lets you fight), in order to test you, some with others. But those who are killed in the Way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost,

Arberry: When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks, then, when you have made wide slaughter among them, tie fast the bonds; then set them free, either by grace or ransom, till the war lays down its loads. So it shall be; and if God had willed, He would have avenged Himself upon them; but that He may try some of you by means of others. And those who are slain in the way of God, He will not send their works astray.

Thanks for a cut and paste.

1. I asked where does it say "cut off their heads". This verse doesnt. Just cutting and pasting from the internet has no bearing.
2. The verse does not say "Jihad". So you were wrong. Maybe someone cherry picked a particular translation who had put "within brackets" for convenience. Blindly cutting and pasting is beneath you.

Yes. Its better not to get in to this "exegetical battle" because websites with lists cannot help in that.

Cheers.
 

danieldemol

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Anyway, how is it inconveniencing women?
See post #18

See, this is a requirement for the person writing a contract. If he doesnt wish to inconvenience women, he could get two men. It is about two options.
That is precisely what might inconvenience women, again see post #18

Anyway, you said "God should know that two women are as suitable for testimony as two men" but you have failed to show where it says "women are unsuitable". You have made that assumption, but its not in the text.
In my opinion it is implied since if one woman were suitable in the absence of one man I assume the text would have allowed it, after all it is strange to arbitrarily inconvenience women based on a whim, it seems reasonable to assume the cause of the inconvenience is due to the belief of the author that one woman in the place of one man is unsuitable.
 

danieldemol

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Yes, if a Muslim was to find people who work as witnesses, they'd choose men. Women's work in an Islamic society is different from your society. I see no reason for a woman to work in a contracts department in the first place. Let alone as someone who is supposed to be a witness.
Wow, so you openly admit that female employment in a contracts department is discriminated against in your version of an ideal Islamic society and yet you fail to see how the Quran has caused inconvenience to women, just wow.

Are you saying a woman who is concerned about a contract would care if the witnesses are two women (and a man) rather than one woman (and a man)?
I haven't said that so far but I do think that if you were to survey women in our western society where they are safe from being declared apostates they would care about such discrimination.

Or are you saying a woman is so concerned about a contract that she must be a witness and she must do it alone lest another woman will make them all worse witnesses?
No

Among Muslims contracts are usually done by men to begin with.
This potentially gives men a lot of undue power over women, according to my understanding the left seeks to ensure adequate consultation by bringing people into power who are affected by the decisions being made. So for example if you were writing a government contract involving indigenous people you would bring indigenous people into the contract making process, id imagine something similar involving contracts affecting women.

Personal opinion then. Are all women equally qualified and efficient business women?
Are all men equally qualified and efficient business men? If not it is strange to discriminate on that reason. Also even if not all women are qualified and efficient is that any reason for holding back the significant numbers of women that are qualified and efficient business women?

So for some, say, 3000 years there was no learning from experience and advance in knowledge, but in 200 years they suddenly began to learn. And you think that claim doesn't imply they're smarter now?
No, not smarter, just having more collective experience. And you would have to be looking at a very narrow field to say humans have learnt nothing from experience in the last 2000 years.

About women?

I don't know, there's certainly a lot you don't know about what they knew.
In my opinion we should not be making decisions based upon what we don't know but upon what we do know, otherwise how can you say that the alleged burying of females by their families in pre-Islamic arabia was wrong?! It could be argued that maybe they knew something about females we don't know! Can you see how silly trying to make a decision based off what you dont know is?
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
In my opinion it is implied since if one woman were suitable in the absence of one man I assume the text would have allowed it, after all it is strange to arbitrarily inconvenience women based on a whim, it seems reasonable to assume the cause of the inconvenience is due to the belief of the author that one woman in the place of one man is unsuitable.

"IN YOUR OPINION". Not the Quran.
 

danieldemol

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
"IN YOUR OPINION". Not the Quran.
It appears to be your opinion that it is not implied in the Quran, but that makes it look as though your alleged God revealed a law without a reason, and if that is the case that the law is without reason, that is a good reason to overturn it in my opinion. It would be lacking the ability to empathise with the inconvenience of women not to overturn the laws of an unreasonable God in my opinion.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
It appears to be your opinion that it is not implied in the Quran, but that makes it look as though your alleged God revealed a law without a reason, and if that is the case that the law is without reason, that is a good reason to overturn it in my opinion. It would be lacking the ability to empathise with the inconvenience of women not to overturn the laws of an unreasonable God in my opinion.

When something is not there, making it up and then saying "Its my opinion" shows its just your opinion.

What you made up is not there in a text, its not option. Its just not there. Its cooked up.
 

danieldemol

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
When something is not there, making it up and then saying "Its my opinion" shows its just your opinion.

What you made up is not there in a text, its not option. Its just not there. Its cooked up.
So are you saying that a)one woman witness is suitable in the place of one man witness and
b)The law was made that two female witnesses are required in the place of one male witness where one female is suitable?
From this i conclude
C)the law is unsuitable
In my opinion.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
So are you saying that a)one woman witness is suitable in the place of one man witness and
b)The law was made that two female witnesses are required in the place of one male witness where one female is suitable?
From this i conclude
C)the law is unsuitable
In my opinion.

Well. The opinion I have is this. This is just my opinion, mixed with some of the very traditional islamic methods of Tafassir.

One type of Tafassir is what you had done. I will explain it. You have probably read on the internet that this verse you quoted is discriminating against women and making them incapable in comparison to a man. Thus, you come from that angle. You probably are not a male supremacist as I observe and respect, but others who rendered this and told you this may have been. So they are putting in what is in their ego into this verse.

The oldest method of Tafassir is Quran bi Quran. It is rendering the Quran from the Quran. When the Quran mentions things like "we made you from a male and a female. And made nations and tribes so that you may know one another. The most honourable among are the most righteous", and "For the men is a portion of what they earned, and for the women is a portion of what they earned". Nowhere in the Quran does it say that "women are lower in capability or intellect than men". No Sexism or Racism. Thats why you have to search through the book and find a verse that you can apply your already inherited thoughts into the text.

Thus, since the Quran is written by one hand, Quran bi Quran should be applied. In this method, there is no way to render this verse as discriminatory. So with that premise one must think "what reasons could there be"?

Where I live, women get four months maternity leave while the father of the child (the husband) gets 5 days. Why? This is the modern society, not 1400 years ago or 600 years ago. Why would the woman get 4 months and men only five? Well, it is obvious. The woman needs time to nurture the baby. The new born needs it. I am no expert on that but this fact is included in the legislature of the government concisely. Paid leave is granted. Its fair dinkum.

Women and men are different no matter how much one tries to harp on it. Now since technology has advanced along with proper sanitary facilities for women they can carry out their employment requisites without much of a problem. But women and men are different. Thus, this verse is leaving room for the absence of one lady who has signed as witness to a financial contract. If one person is absent, the other person can provide the necessary testimony to the contract.

This verse does not say anything about women being incapable, which is your personal input.

Salam.
 

danieldemol

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Well. The opinion I have is this. This is just my opinion, mixed with some of the very traditional islamic methods of Tafassir.

One type of Tafassir is what you had done. I will explain it. You have probably read on the internet that this verse you quoted is discriminating against women and making them incapable in comparison to a man. Thus, you come from that angle. You probably are not a male supremacist as I observe and respect, but others who rendered this and told you this may have been. So they are putting in what is in their ego into this verse.

The oldest method of Tafassir is Quran bi Quran. It is rendering the Quran from the Quran. When the Quran mentions things like "we made you from a male and a female. And made nations and tribes so that you may know one another. The most honourable among are the most righteous", and "For the men is a portion of what they earned, and for the women is a portion of what they earned". Nowhere in the Quran does it say that "women are lower in capability or intellect than men". No Sexism or Racism. Thats why you have to search through the book and find a verse that you can apply your already inherited thoughts into the text.

Thus, since the Quran is written by one hand, Quran bi Quran should be applied. In this method, there is no way to render this verse as discriminatory. So with that premise one must think "what reasons could there be"?

Where I live, women get four months maternity leave while the father of the child (the husband) gets 5 days. Why? This is the modern society, not 1400 years ago or 600 years ago. Why would the woman get 4 months and men only five? Well, it is obvious. The woman needs time to nurture the baby. The new born needs it. I am no expert on that but this fact is included in the legislature of the government concisely. Paid leave is granted. Its fair dinkum.

Women and men are different no matter how much one tries to harp on it. Now since technology has advanced along with proper sanitary facilities for women they can carry out their employment requisites without much of a problem. But women and men are different. Thus, this verse is leaving room for the absence of one lady who has signed as witness to a financial contract. If one person is absent, the other person can provide the necessary testimony to the contract.

This verse does not say anything about women being incapable, which is your personal input.

Salam.
I disagree that the oldest method of rendering the Quran is from the Quran, I think the most probable oldest method of rendering the Quran is by asking questions concerning its meaning to Muhammad. (Assuming by rendering you mean explaining/interpreting)

The problem is those explanations were passed down orally, which allowed for distortion, leaving the meaning suspect.

I agree that men and women are different, but we have the technology to overcome this, a woman can testify over the phone or in many other ways, or the testimony (your word) can wait the insignificant amount of time for a woman to return to work after an absence for testimony, and the same is equally true of a man who has time off work due to an injury for example, yet the Quran does not specify that two injured men are required in the place of one able bodied man for example.

So i think that your opinion of what is obviously implied is logically faulty within the context of what is specified in my opinion.
 
Last edited:

firedragon

Veteran Member
I disagree that the oldest method of rendering the Quran is from the Quran, I think the most probable oldest method of rendering the Quran is by asking questions concerning its meaning to Muhammad. (Assuming by rendering you mean explaining/interpreting)

You think? Looool. You just "THINK". Good one.

The problem is those explanations were passed down orally, which allowed for distortion, leaving the meaning suspect.

Err. Which explanations, what is the transmission? What in the world are you speaking about?

I agree that men and women are different, but we have the technology to overcome this, a woman can testify over the phone or in many other ways,

Very good. So that's called "Taweel al Samar:"

So yes. Please do go and inconvenience a nursing mom to come on the phone while accusing others of inconveniencing two women just for witness. This is hilarious.

So in my that your opinion of what is obviously implied is logically faulty within the context of what is specified in my opinion.

See, projecting your personal ideas about women being inferior is your fault. If you got that from someone else its their fault. Thats the reason you will keep ignoring any explanation and question in order to impose your personal "OPINION" you have built up based on your personal ideas on a text that doesnt have the things you are saying it does.

You didnt give a reasonable explanation mate to why you had double standards here. I asked you. Earlier, when there was a dual word in Arabic for day, you said "My opinion is its one day" which is rather childish to say, but now you are speaking about two women while the word is still a "Dual" word. What is your response?
 

danieldemol

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
You think? Looool. You just "THINK". Good one.
Sure, it is a natural behavior to seek the meaning of words/books from their authors

Err. Which explanations, what is the transmission? What in the world are you speaking about?
The explanations given in the hadith that were orally transmitted.

So yes. Please do go and inconvenience a nursing mom to come on the phone while accusing others of inconveniencing two women just for witness. This is hilarious.
A)A phone call can't wait for the insignificant amount of time for a mother to finish nursing and put the baby down and call back?
B)You've never seen a nursing woman with a baby in one arm and a phone in the other calling her family and friends?

See, projecting your personal ideas about women being inferior is your fault. If you got that from someone else its their fault. Thats the reason you will keep ignoring any explanation and question in order to impose your personal "OPINION" you have built up based on your personal ideas on a text that doesnt have the things you are saying it does.
It doesn't explicitly say anything about nursing either in my opinion. Also I said "suitable" not "inferior"

You didnt give a reasonable explanation mate to why you had double standards here. I asked you. Earlier, when there was a dual word in Arabic for day, you said "My opinion is its one day" which is rather childish to say, but now you are speaking about two women while the word is still a "Dual" word. What is your response?
You are asking me concerning things I have no knowledge of, but I'm sure an omniscient omnipotent God could have either selected or invented and explained a non-dual word to avoid the centuries of inconvenience to women caused by the ambiguity of a dual word which it should have been able to foresee.

Hence the Quran is a manmade work in my opinion.
 
Top