How to test the truth of a religion

[jack_hawkins]

I think most thought the earth was flat in that time or they didn’t care or think about it (this was in 545AD or something like that), then C. Columbus (1400’s)was first to prove it was round while many of his time thought it was flat. At least that is what i remember from history class??? Does anyone know…

About the "clot " thing…it is very interesting information for that time period.

I am not sure if any of this is “proof” but it is very interesting from a historical stand point, to me anyways… a history buff.

I know that during the time that the Church was disputing the fact, that it was generally accepted that the earth was round. Columbus knew that the earth was round otherwise why would he name the islands the West Indies???
The medical stuff was again accepted dogma for the time, it all comes from Aristotle I think - Muhammed makes the same mistakes as the accepted sources of the time eg saying there are 360 joints in the body (again totally wrong). The human embryo doesn’t resemble a blood clot, I can assure, at any stage.

 

[Verisimilitude]

I know that during the time that the Church was disputing the fact, that it was generally accepted that the earth was round. Columbus knew that the earth was round otherwise why would he name the islands the West Indies???
The medical stuff was again accepted dogma for the time, it all comes from Aristotle I think - **Muhammed makes the same mistakes **as the accepted sources of the time eg saying there are 360 joints in the body (again totally wrong). The human embryo doesn’t resemble a blood clot, I can assure, at any stage.

You forgot- Muhammed is the perfect example for human beings. He can’t make mistakes as the mouthpiece of god. You must understand it or translated it wrong. I’m pretty sure the classical Arabic will provide a reasonable explaination.

 

[George_Waters]

I know I am not the sharpest tool in the shed, as many of you may attest, however it truly baffles me how people can ignore such obvious inconsistencies, contradictions and errors when it comes to matters of religion. Yes, religion is a matter of faith, however if your faith contradicts the facts, you have an issue. I guess this is why so many people like to claim the facts must be wrong because it does not fit their faith.

 

[hamba2han]

Now that we have seen and understood the inimitability of not only the eloquence of the language used in the Qur’an but also the structural beauty and magnificence of it’s previously unseen form of being part poetry and part rhyming prose as well, we can now go on to examine the arrangement of the chapters and verses in the Qur’an.

The following is an excerpt from an article:

In the Qur’an, the man who received its revelation did not wait until all its passages had been given to him. Indeed, he did not wait for a single surah to be completed before deciding on it’s arrangement. Whenever he received a passage or a single verse, he ordered that it should be placed in its particular slot in a well-defined position in its surah.

It should be emphasized here that the revelation of verses and passages did not follow the order in which they did occur in the Qur’an. Many a surah was revealed, in whole or in parts, interspersed with the revelation of other passages in different surahs. Many a verse is placed towards the end of a surah despite its being revealed much earlier than the parts preceding it, and vice versa. Indeed, the revelation and arrangement of Qur’anic verses and passages were two separate matters following two different routes which hardly ever met. This gives us a profoundly edifying aspect of the arrangement of this unique book.

If we look at each passage at the time of its revelation, and study the different aspects associated with its revelation: its timing, the events leading to it and the needs it satisfies, we are certain to conclude that each was topical at its particular time of revelation. Each one addressed a matter that happened to exist at a particular time.

Prior to the event concerned, there was no indication suggesting that it was forthcoming. Hence, each passage is a complete while that does not follow a pattern which puts it with other passages in a particular mould.

Let us at the same time consider how each passage is placed at the very moment of its revelation within a particular framework with either has been set in advance, or will be set at a later stage, and given a definite slot that occurs early or late within that framework.

At the time of its revelation, a passage is ordered to be placed, say, at the end of a particular surah, while another passage, revealed after a short or long while, is placed in the same surah, after a given number of its verses. One passage may be ordered to be placed at the outset of a surah of which no part has yet been revealed, while a subsequent passage is placed within a surah the rest of which has long since been revealed.

When we consider such detailed instructions on the arrangement of passages and Surahs we are bound to conclude that there is a complete and detailed plan assigning the position of each passage before they are all revealed. Indeed the arrangement is made before the reasons leading to the revelation of any passage occur, and even before the start of the preliminary causes of such events.

Nevertheless, this whole, meticulously detailed plan of distribution and arrangement was made with full resolve and determination. Not a single verse or passage placed in a particular surah was later moved to a different one. Nor was a verse placed at the beginning or the end of a surah ever re-assigned a different position in that same surah at a later stage.

Such are the plain facts about the arrangement of the Qur’an as it was revealed in separate verses, passages and surahs over a period of 23 years.

What does that tell us about it’s source?

 

[cestusdei]

I will offer a verse that I believe is far more beautiful then anything the quran has to offer in arabic or any other language.

“For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, so that whoever might believe in him shall have eternal life.”

I have taken hamba’s challenge and won! I didn’t have to work hard. The word of God beats the word of muhammed anytime.

So hamba when will you be getting baptized?

 

[Valke2]

enjoy your Quran.

 

[jack_hawkins]

What does that tell us about it’s source?

NOTHING!
There are many many books superior to the Koran. The Koran contains no great insights into the human condition, but plenty of hate! I found the Koran tedious and couldn’t go through more than about a quarter before giving up in disgust!

 

[George_Waters]

hamba2han,

We know you believe your religion is the religion of God. However, God has given us the ability to discern the facts and has shown us the truth and nothing you can say will change the truth that God has revealed to us through His son Jesus Christ. May God bless you and send the Holy Spirit to you so that you too may see the truth.

 

[jack_hawkins]

I wish hamba2han could truly see God - unfortunately he has given himself over to Satan

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

But this is a challenge that millions believe they have met time and time again. that you or another muslim offers an explanation as to why we are not correct, does’t prove anything.

A mistake in the Koran is only a mistake if it is admitted to be - human ingenuity can always show that the Koran is “free from all error”, just as it can do the same for any other “inerrant” holy book.​

I don’t why inerrancy is so important to some people - does belief in the infallibility of the Pope really depend on the universality of the Flood ? It does for some.

ISTM there are several tests of a religion, which converge & complement one another - intellectual justifications don’t amount to much, because they can always be undetermined by a sharp debater; which makes the validity of a religion depend on debating ability. I don’t recall Isaiah wasting his time on that sort of foolery As for Christians - Paul says this:

• 1 Cor. 1:18 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
• 1Cor. 1:19 For it is written, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the cleverness of the clever I will thwart."
• 1Cor. 1:20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
• 1Cor. 1:21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe…

 

[Valke2]

A mistake in the Koran is only a mistake if it is admitted to be - human ingenuity can always show that the Koran is “free from all error”, just as it can do the same for any other “inerrant” holy book.​

absolutely.

ISTM there are several tests of a religion, which converge & complement one another - intellectual justifications don’t amount to much, because they can always be undetermined by a sharp debater; which makes the validity of a religion depend on debating ability. I don’t recall Isaiah wasting his time on that sort of foolery

that reminds me of something I read.

Why do we [Jews]say: “Our God and the God of our fathers”? There are two kinds of people who believe in God. One believes because he has taken over the faith of his fathers, and his faith is strong. The other has arrived at faith through thinking and studying.

The difference between them is this: The advantage of the first is that, no matter what arguments may be brought against it, his faith cannot be shaken; his faith is firm because it was taken over from his fathers. But there is one flaw in it: he has faith only in response to the command of man, and he has acquired it without studying and thinking for himself.

The advantage of the second is that, because he found God through much thinking, he has arrived at a faith of his own. But here too there is a flaw: it is easy to shake his faith by refuting it through evidence. But he who unites both kinds of faith is invincible. And so we say, “Our God” with reference to our studies, and “God of our fathers” with an eye to tradition.

The same interpretation has been given to our saying, “God of Abraham, God of Isaac, and God of Jacob,” and not “God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,” for this indicates that Isaac and Jacob did not merely take over the tradition of Abraham; they themselves searched for God.

(From Buber’s “Ten Rungs”)

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

The embryology in the Koran is most definitely wrong, I can tell you as a qualified physician. The thing is, if you point to the science in the Koran as evidence of divine authorship, then you must accept that if any of the science is wrong, then the Koran cannot be divinely authored. That is logical isn’t it? And the embryology is definitely wrong.
I find this logic very flimsy anyhow. Many peoples of that time realised that the earth was not flat, esp sailors for example.
I do not believe that the Koran has mention of black holes when it does not mention something as mundane as snow!!!

That’s a bit flimsy - why must something mundane be mentioned if an alleged mention of something more remote is to be a mention of that thing ?​

ISTM that attempts to find modern cosmology in the Koran are an example of the tendency to treat an honoured text - the epic poems of Homer & then, Virgil; the Tanakh; the Bible - as a repository of information upon all things. There are probably Christians who have found quantum physics & symbolic logic - not to mention interstellar travel - in the Bible ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

absolutely.

that reminds me of something I read.

Why do we [Jews]say: “Our God and the God of our fathers”? There are two kinds of people who believe in God. One believes because he has taken over the faith of his fathers, and his faith is strong. The other has arrived at faith through thinking and studying.

The difference between them is this: The advantage of the first is that, no matter what arguments may be brought against it, his faith cannot be shaken; his faith is firm because it was taken over from his fathers. But there is one flaw in it: he has faith only in response to the command of man, and he has acquired it without studying and thinking for himself.

The advantage of the second is that, because he found God through much thinking, he has arrived at a faith of his own. But here too there is a flaw: it is easy to shake his faith by refuting it through evidence. But he who unites both kinds of faith is invincible. And so we say, “Our God” with reference to our studies, and “God of our fathers” with an eye to tradition.

The same interpretation has been given to our saying, “God of Abraham, God of Isaac, and God of Jacob,” and not “God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,” for this indicates that Isaac and Jacob did not merely take over the tradition of Abraham; they themselves searched for God.

(From Buber’s “Ten Rungs”)

That’s very helpful - and enlightening. Thanks ​

 

[jack_hawkins]

That’s a bit flimsy - why must something mundane be mentioned if an alleged mention of something more remote is to be a mention of that thing ?

Don’t you find it odd that Muhammed didn’t first demonstrate his knowledge of Earth outside Saudi Arabia before commenting on the rest of the universe???
Surely that would be make more sense?
Why would mentioning black holes convince his contemporaries?

 

[Verisimilitude]

It should be emphasized here that the revelation of verses and passages did not follow the order in which they did occur in the Qur’an. Many a surah was revealed, in whole or in parts, interspersed with the revelation of other passages in different surahs. Many a verse is placed towards the end of a surah despite its being revealed much earlier than the parts preceding it, and vice versa. Indeed, the revelation and arrangement of Qur’anic verses and passages were two separate matters following two different routes which hardly ever met. This gives us a profoundly edifying aspect of the arrangement of this unique book.

If we look at each passage at the time of its revelation, and study the different aspects associated with its revelation: its timing, the events leading to it and the needs it satisfies, we are certain to conclude that each was topical at its particular time of revelation. Each one addressed a matter that happened to exist at a particular time.

Prior to the event concerned, there was no indication suggesting that it was forthcoming. Hence, each passage is a complete while that does not follow a pattern which puts it with other passages in a particular mould.

Let us at the same time consider how each passage is placed at the very moment of its revelation within a particular framework with either has been set in advance, or will be set at a later stage, and given a definite slot that occurs early or late within that framework.

What does that tell us about it’s source?

So then this is wrong?

Prophet Muhammad was the first to write down the Quran revealed to him and when he died , the whole Quran was completely written, although not in one book, but rather on pieces of woods, papers, palm leaves, bones…etc. It was the first Khalifa, Abu Bakr who collected the Quran into one book. The manuscript on which the Qur’an was collected, remained with Abu Bakr and then with Umar (the second Khalifa), and after him, it remained with Hafsa, 'Umar’s daughter and one of the Prophet’s wives

This copy of the Quran, was the only copy made after Muhammad’s own copy. It is from that copy that Uthman, the third Khalifa, made other copies to distribute to different regions of the Islamic Empire. Uthman retur ned Hafsa’s copy of the Quran to her. Her copy however was later burned by Marwan b. Hakam (d.65/684). Burning of Hafsa’s copy was the last chapter in covering up the addition of two false verses in sura 9 as later discovered.

Of the copies made by Uthman, two still exist to our day. One is in the city of Tashkent, (Uzbekistan) and the second one is in Istanbul (Turkey).

From these oldest copies more copies were made and distributed throughout the world. **Although many famous Muslim scholars claim that all the copies of the Quran anywhere in the world are the same, they are only exposing their ignorance to the facts and mislead millions of Muslims to believe in their wrong teachings. **The only motive for them is their misunderstanding of and inability to comprehend verse 15:9. We will see later different Qurans written differently. The most standardized editions of the Quran in the world today is the one printed in Cairo, Egypt in 1924 (approved in 1918) and after that the King Fahd edition in Saudi Arabia.

Comparing the Egyptian edition to the oldest available Quran, the Tashkent Quran, will show that there have been many human errors in the Tashkent Quran that has to be corrected when the Egyptian edition was made. The errors were obvious because the Quran has always been completely memorized and kept in its oral transmission to these days and can be verified against any written book. It is impossible to consider that God meant to preserve and protect the written books for example by Uthman (the Tashkent Quran), or any other human being for this matter when they are full of human errors…

submission.org/quran/protect.html

 

[George_Waters]

absolutely.

that reminds me of something I read.

Why do we [Jews]say: “Our God and the God of our fathers”? There are two kinds of people who believe in God. One believes because he has taken over the faith of his fathers, and his faith is strong. The other has arrived at faith through thinking and studying.

The difference between them is this: The advantage of the first is that, no matter what arguments may be brought against it, his faith cannot be shaken; his faith is firm because it was taken over from his fathers. But there is one flaw in it: he has faith only in response to the command of man, and he has acquired it without studying and thinking for himself.

The advantage of the second is that, because he found God through much thinking, he has arrived at a faith of his own. But here too there is a flaw: it is easy to shake his faith by refuting it through evidence. But he who unites both kinds of faith is invincible. And so we say, “Our God” with reference to our studies, and “God of our fathers” with an eye to tradition.

The same interpretation has been given to our saying, “God of Abraham, God of Isaac, and God of Jacob,” and not “God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,” for this indicates that Isaac and Jacob did not merely take over the tradition of Abraham; they themselves searched for God.

(From Buber’s “Ten Rungs”)

Thanks for sharing this!

 

[Booklover]

The following is an excerpt from an article:

The Arabic language and Arab speech are divided into two branches. One of them is rhymed poetry. It is a speech with metre and rhyme, which means every line of it ends upon a definite letter, which is called the ‘rhyme’. This rhymed poetry is again divided into metres or what is called as al-Bihar, literally meaning ‘The Seas’. This is so called because of the way the poetry moves according to the rhythmic patterns. There are sixteen al-Bihar viz; at-Tawil, al-Bassit, al-Wafir, al-Kamil, ar-Rajs, al-Khafif, al-Hazaj, al-Muttakarib, al-Munsarih, al-Muktatab, al-Muktadarak, al-Madid, al-Mujtath, al-Ramel, al-Khabab and as-Saria’. Each one rhymes differently.

The other branch of Arabic speech is prose, that is non-metrical speech. The prose may be a rhymed prose. Rhymed prose consists of cola ending on the same rhyme throughout, or of sentences rhymed in pairs. This is called “rhymed prose” or sajc. Prose may also be straight prose (mursal). In straight prose, the speech goes on and is not divided in cola, but is continued straight through without any divisions, either of rhyme or of anything else. Prose is employed in sermons and prayers and in speeches intended to encourage or frighten the masses.

So, the challenge is to produce in Arabic, three lines, that do not fall into one of these sixteen al-Bihar, that is not rhyming prose, nor like the speech of soothsayers, and not normal speech, that it should contain at least a comprehensible meaning and rhetoric, i.e. not gobbledygook.

It is interesting to note that all of the known pre-Islam and post-Islamic poetry falls in the above sixteen metres or al-Bihar. Indeed the pagans of Mecca repeatedly accuse Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) of being a forger, a soothsayer etc. The Arabs who were at the pinnacle of their poetry and prose during the time of revelation of the Qur’an could not even produce the smallest surah of its like. The Qur’an’s form did not fit into any of the above mentioned categories. It was this that made the Qur’an inimitable, and left the pagan Arabs at a loss as to how they might combat it.

And as the Qur’an itself says:

And if ye are in doubt as to what We have revealed from time to time to Our servant, then produce a Sura like thereunto; and call your witnesses or helpers (If there are any) besides Allah, if your (doubts) are true. But if ye cannot- and of a surety ye cannot- then fear the Fire whose fuel is men and stones,- which is prepared for those who reject Faith. (Qur’an 2:23-24)

You call that an honest challenge??Beauty is in the eye of the beholder! What is beautiful to some, may not be to others.

You don’t even have any rules to this “beauty contest”. And since it’s been predetermined that the challenge cannot be met, the Quran wins hands down and therefore proves its “divinity”.

“Aesthetics can never be a measure of truth. Although truth can certainly be beautiful, so can lies. On the other hand, truth can sometimes be unattractive - like an uncut diamond or a boring sermon.”

answering-islam.org.uk/Quran/Miracle/baretruth.html

Vickie

 

[Booklover]

The Qur’an is indeed the literal Word of God.

Are you saying that God is not allowed to talk metaphorically to His creations?

Like I said, the Qur’an is not a science textbook.

In fact, it uses the most beautiful Arabic language ever seen in history.

Are “the stars were created as missiles to throw at the jinns”, metaphorical or literal? And if the former, what does it mean?

 

[cestusdei]

Frankly Dante’s Divine Comedy is incomparably more beautiful then the quran.

 

[Montalban]

About the "clot " thing…it is very interesting information for that time period.

But it’s wrong.

The Ancient Greeks had an idea of ‘atoms’ too, but it’s not like modern atomic theory. So are the Greeks just as ‘god-inspired’ as the Koran?