Muslims and "Circular Reasoning"

[Mirdath]

Can you name just one “objective scholar” who says that the Qur’an is not miraculous?

Well, technically, I guess I count, though my published works are limited to a few programs Still, I’m with you in that I think the Bible just as divinely inspired as the Quran

Verisimilitude:

The justification of it is Gods to answer, but I can think of a reason it could be considered required as some things are to serve a higher, righteous purpose. Gold must be heated to be purified; so might a people be prepared by God. Do you care to guess what I think the result of that purification process to a chosen people?

You are trying to find a ‘justification’ for genocide. Is this really what you want to show as an act of an all-loving God?

Gold may be heated to proof it, and a people might be tried; but that says nothing about other peoples. What had they done? They had no knowledge that the Israelite God was the only one (and that according to the Israelites, another tribe whom they had no reason to hold in high esteem). Did they deserve death for their ignorance?

 

[pro_universal]

The justification of it is Gods to answer, but I can think of a reason it could be considered required as some things are to serve a higher, righteous purpose. Gold must be heated to be purified; so might a people be prepared by God. Do you care to guess what I think the result of that purification process to a chosen people?

Why and what do you believe of it…or God?

Well, if you can use this justification to make sense of commands in the Bible to kill whole cities full of people, why can’t Muslims rationally say the same thing about commands to go to war in the Quran?

Surely you can understand how strange a Muslim would find it that you condemn the Quran on the basis that it contains commands to go to war, but then turn around and find that commands to kill women and children are good things in the Old Testament.

 

[eliasaph99]

Can you name just one “objective scholar” who says that the Qur’an is not miraculous?

In any case, the Qur’an itself answers this question when in many places, it challenges the people to produce a Surrah like one of its Surrahs. It appears that the Christian missionaries who call the challenge irrelevant or an utterly subjective criterion are pretty much unaware of how the Arabic poetry and prose compares with the Qur’an.

The following verses of the Qur’an deal with this challenge:

If the Mankind and the Jinns were together to produce the like of this Qur’an, they could not produce the like thereof, even if they helped one another.
(Al-Qur’an 17:88)

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.
(Al-Qur’an 2:23-24)

Ever since the Qur’an was revealed, fourteen centuries ago, no one has been able to produce a single chapter like the chapters of the Qur’an in their beauty, eloquence, splendor, wise legislation, true information, true prophecy, and other perfect attributes.

The smallest chapter in the Qur’an (Chapter 108) is composed of only ten words, yet no one has ever been able to meet this challenge, then or today. Some of the disbelieving Arabs who were enemies of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) tried to meet this challenge to prove that Muhammad (pbuh) was not a true prophet, but they failed to do so.

I do not normally make comments like this, but I cannot refrain.

This post from hamba2han is, without bar, one of the stupidest things I have ever read.

I feel I must add to this to the person who actually accepts such drivel as proof of anything is even stupider than the proof

 

[pro_universal]

I do not normally make comments like this, but I cannot refrain.

This post from hamba2han is, without bar, one of the stupidest things I have ever read.

I feel I must add to this to the person who actually accepts such drivel as proof of anything is even stupider than the proof

I think it’s extremely unfair to make this judgment without being able to read Arabic. The claim is that the Arabic poetry is the finest-and you don’t find many Arabic speakers who challenge that. As far as I can tell, there’s actually widespread agreement that the Arabic of the Quran is the Arabic language’s version of Shakespearean english-a high water mark in the literature.

 

[Verisimilitude]

Gold may be heated to proof it, and a people might be tried; but that says nothing about other peoples. What had they done? They had no knowledge that the Israelite God was the only one (and that according to the Israelites, another tribe whom they had no reason to hold in high esteem). Did they deserve death for their ignorance?

Matthew 20:15 Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with my own things? Or is your eye evil because I am good?’

At one point God nearly wiped out humanity with a flood. Does it make a difference to you if nearly 250,000 people die in an tsunami in 2004 verses a few hundred people are killed 3000 years ago? Is it becasue God commanded their deaths? Is God responsible for either the earthquake or not preventing it? How often does God command to kill other sin the OT? Are those commands perpetual? How many times does Jesus or any Apostles say to kill in the NT? How about the Quran and the perpetual decree?

Though it certainly should make us aware of our place creation, and also give insight to God. I can’t say I fully understand it, but it does make me wonder about the fate of all men. Does the Church say a mortal sin, or not knowing/believing Christ as God leads to certain absolute eternal damnation. for the whole of humanity from it’s inception?

No. The Church teaches what She knows as understood by the first 2000 years of God speaking to humanity after however you want to get man out of the Garden until we started writting on tablets and Abraham enters the picture. The last 2000 years begining with the man Jesus redefined that messege to something that is still being more understood every day.

It all comes down to one thing- what hapens to us (and others) after we die regardless of how we live or die, and I would wager if you ask any legitimate Church authority about the fate of anyone to include Judas, Pilot, Mohammed…yourself or your grandmother they will say they do not know for certain. What they should tell you is what ‘we’ now know, and that is the Way to live this life that is better for us spiritually and physically.

Matthew 6:25 "Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes?

Dare we hope everyone rejoins God eventually? My faith in God, the belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ, the Apostolic catholic Church to include the legitimate earthly authority of faith residing in the occupant of the seat of St. Peter is not in conflict with logic or reason or hope.

If you believe in God it makes sense He would somehow lead us in the best direction of life. After 2000 years of words and deeds, He did so by example in Person. How/why God did it as it happened makes sense as mush as we can understand it when one considers the magnitude of making it obvious enough to the whole world without it being programed in us more than our human nature already is, or having a permanent earthly dictator forcefully making humanity adhear (like Islam wants to). It is why we have free will. We are free to exercise it to our benefit or detrament. I’m sure you have heard the term of trying to heard cats. God can heard cats if we can’t.

Apparently it takes a while for most of us to get it, and I don’t just mean Christ though He is the culmination and fulfillment of all the legitmate words of God. The messege is bigger than Christ in a way. Bigger than the man, but not the Word and Spirit of the man which is the messege. That is why I believe Jesus is God.

John 13
12When he had finished washing their feet, he put on his clothes and returned to his place. “Do you understand what I have done for you?” he asked them. 13"You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and rightly so, for that is what I am. 14Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet. 15I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you. 16I tell you the truth, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. 17Now that you know these things, you will be blessed if you do them.

I am not a perfect follower, but I cannot deny the truth of it all and much more often than not I try to live it so people can see it rather than me telling them about it. It makes sense just as other things do not- Islam for example, and those parts that I do not and can not fully understand I pray for the ability to accept and to learn the secrets of its Wisdom in time. There are many more reasons to believe than not.

I bet you also have heard the term not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[Verisimilitude]

Well, if you can use this justification to make sense of commands in the Bible to kill whole cities full of people, why can’t Muslims rationally say the same thing about commands to go to war in the Quran?

Mainly becasue Mohammed had no legitimate authority in any capacity be it lineage or prophecy to speak on Gods behalf. What does a pro_universal (n/a) believe?

Surely you can understand how strange a Muslim would find it that you condemn the Quran on the basis that it contains commands to go to war, but then turn around and find that commands to kill women and children are good things in the Old Testament.

No, not really; unless you accept how they re-write what is recorded in the OT (as well as the NT) as something that fits their view as recorded in the Quran. As I said elsewhere and otherwise the Bible does not record the command to the Jews to kill others as either often or perpetual, and that is significant even if you do not accept God as the Jew, Catholic/Christain or even the Mohammedean does. The NT has nothing even remotely close to such a command.

The Quran is rife with such a doctrine, and there is no justification or legitimacy to Mohammed- and it all comes from Mohammed and/or some unknown, unidentified spirit that spoke to Mohammed- not God.

600 years of tradition and history is denied by an illiterate Arabaian with no cause except to exault himslef- unless you believe him. I don’t. If you do, please say so, so I can better respond to you. If you don’t believe it yourself, why are you trying to find a justification? Or are you trying to disprove both?

 

[Verisimilitude]

I think it’s extremely unfair to make this judgment without being able to read Arabic. The claim is that the Arabic poetry is the finest-and you don’t find many Arabic speakers who challenge that. As far as I can tell, there’s actually widespread agreement that the Arabic of the Quran is the Arabic language’s version of Shakespearean english-a high water mark in the literature.

Must Japanese poetry be read and understood in its native tongue to fully appreciate its beauty or meaning? Why isn’t it unfair to say “kill them where you find them” is anything other than wrong regardless of how pretty it looks in print, or sounds in classical Arabic?

hamba2han constantly throws out that Quarnic “test”. I say read the first fifty pages of the Silimarillion and the test is won by Tolkein. He disagrees.

 

[pro_universal]

Must Japanese poetry be read and understood in its native tongue to fully appreciate its beauty or meaning? Why isn’t it unfair to say “kill them where you find them” is anything other than wrong regardless of how pretty it looks in print, or sounds in classical Arabic?

hamba2han constantly throws out that Quarnic “test”. I say read the first fifty pages of the Silimarillion and the test is won by Tolkein. He disagrees.

At the risk of being obvious, yes, you need to read Japanese to evaluate the poetic quality of Japanese language text. Maybe you like the ideas too-but the text itself can’t be judged as literary expression without, well, being read by a person who understands it.

As for what is wrong or right, what is your opinion on this bible passage?

Deuteronomy 13:6-11 (New International Version)
6
If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your fathers have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him. 9 You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone him to death, because he tried to turn you away from the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 11 Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again.

How do you decide that “fight the unbelievers” is wrong no matter where it appears, but avoid concluding that the Bible is wrong when it says to kill your sister if she asks you to worship another God?

 

[pro_universal]

As I said elsewhere and otherwise the Bible does not record the command to the Jews to kill others as either often or perpetual, and that is significant even if you do not accept God as the Jew, Catholic/Christain or even the Mohammedean does. The NT has nothing even remotely close to such a command.

The Quran is rife with such a doctrine, and there is no justification or legitimacy to Mohammed- and it all comes from Mohammed and/or some unknown, unidentified spirit that spoke to Mohammed- not God.

600 years of tradition and history is denied by an illiterate Arabaian with no cause except to exault himslef- unless you believe him. I don’t. If you do, please say so, so I can better respond to you. If you don’t believe it yourself, why are you trying to find a justification? Or are you trying to disprove both?

Again, your claim here is simply not true.

I just posted the verse above. The bible is explicit: Kill anyone who worships a different God. Even if it’s your sister.

There is no time limit in that verse, nor is there any restriction. That looks remarkably like “kill the unbelievers no matter what”, to me.

Here’s some more from Deutoronomy 13:

Starting from the command to absolutely observe the rules laid down:

"Every command that I enjoin on you, you shall be careful to observe, neither adding to it nor subtracting from it.

God commands in this book:

"If, in any of the cities which the LORD, your God, gives you to dwell in, you hear it said
14
that certain scoundrels have sprung up among you and have led astray the inhabitants of their city to serve other gods whom you have not known,
15
you must inquire carefully into the matter and investigate it thoroughly. If you find that it is true and an established fact that this abomination has been committed in your midst,
16
**you shall put the inhabitants of that city to the sword, dooming the city and all life that is in it, even its cattle, to the sword. **

Again, no time limitations, no “only do it for this purpose.” Just a broad command to kill anyone who is of a different religion.

Do you think this teaching is right, or wrong?

 

[Montalban]

Think the Jews might have a bone to pick with you over ‘appropriating’ Abraham and Moses?

Except the early Christians were mostly ex-Jews. They had an inheretence they chose to share
No. It limits the use of the law.
No. It limits the use of the law.The entirety of the Old Testament was;
Great. But irrelevant. We are not Jews. What Christians know about Jesus, what they taught about him was not solely based on the OT. You simply choose to miss the point
No. It limits the use of the law.The Quran didn’t appear out of whole cloth at the beginning of Mohammed’s preaching career either.
No, but his sayings did. These were collected FROM THE VERY BEGINNING -that is their claim. No where is there evidence that Matthew walked around with Jesus taking notes of what Jesus said. I know it doesn’t help you case to follow history on these points.
No. It limits the use of the law.
Yet both are supposed infallibly true on their own merits by the respective faiths! How can members of one point to the other and accuse them of illogic while doing the same thing themselves?
Because we don’t claim to have compiled them in the same way.
No. It limits the use of the law.Which falls into the same trap. It is the ‘other half’ of the foundation of the Church; it is an integral part of the faith, so you believe it. Why is it right?
I said why it’s right. If you want to ignore the answer that’s up to you.

Here it is again… we presently have witnesses to the truth and some show this by miracles and how they themselves change -with an aforetaste of what is to come.

In summary you simply choose to re-write Christian texts in a vain effort to bring it to the same ‘claim’ as Moslems make of theirs. You do indeed note the OT was in existence but ignore the vast gap between Christian and Jewish teachings.

You ignore what Moslems claim about their own Koran.

You ignore my answer about tradition.

What next?

 

[inJESUS]

Can you name just one “objective scholar” who says that the Qur’an is not miraculous?

In any case, the Qur’an itself answers this question when in many places, it challenges the people to produce a Surrah like one of its Surrahs. It appears that the Christian missionaries who call the challenge irrelevant or an utterly subjective criterion are pretty much unaware of how the Arabic poetry and prose compares with the Qur’an.

The following verses of the Qur’an deal with this challenge:

If the Mankind and the Jinns were together to produce the like of this Qur’an, they could not produce the like thereof, even if they helped one another.
(Al-Qur’an 17:88)

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.
(Al-Qur’an 2:23-24)

Ever since the Qur’an was revealed, fourteen centuries ago, no one has been able to produce a single chapter like the chapters of the Qur’an in their beauty, eloquence, splendor, wise legislation, true information, true prophecy, and other perfect attributes.

The smallest chapter in the Qur’an (Chapter 108) is composed of only ten words, yet no one has ever been able to meet this challenge, then or today. Some of the disbelieving Arabs who were enemies of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) tried to meet this challenge to prove that Muhammad (pbuh) was not a true prophet, but they failed to do so.

in other words, you will answer him : you are not being objective because the Quran has to be miraculous since it says so?

we can read Ali Dashti, the known Iranian-Arab scholar, has the following to say:

“Neither the Qur’an’s eloquence, nor it’s moral precepts are miraculous.”
Earlier on in the book, he discusses cases of other scholars who shared his point of view, such as the blind Syrian poet Abu 'l-Ala al Ma’arri, who Dashti describes as: “…a great and penetrating Arab thinker” (pg 53) and “…a great and universally admired poet-philosopher” (pg 94). This man considered some of his own works, to be on par with the Qur’an. If his evaluation of the facts is faulty, who then, if not a man of his learning, can be the judge of such a thing? Indeed even Muslim scholars in that age, did not believe that the Qur’an was untouchable in literary excellence. Here is a quote from Dashti concerning this:

“Among the muslim scholars of the early period, before bigotry and hyperbole prevailed, were some such as Ebrahim on-Nazzim who openly acknowleged that the arrangment and syntax of the Qur’an are not miraculous and that work of equal or greater value could be produced by other God-fearing persons”, ( pg 48)

Ali Dashti, “Twenty Three Years: A Study of the Prophetic Career of Mohammad”, Routledge Chapman & Hall, Mazda Pubs, Bibliotheca Iranica: Reprints Ser., Vol. No. 2., 1985.

What will your answer be? that all of them are biased and wrong right? because you already decided that the quran must be miraculous if it says so. Which means it is not even a challenge when you already decided the outcome and put yourself the judge.

 

[Montalban]

I think it’s extremely unfair to make this judgment without being able to read Arabic. The claim is that the Arabic poetry is the finest-and you don’t find many Arabic speakers who challenge that. As far as I can tell, there’s actually widespread agreement that the Arabic of the Quran is the Arabic language’s version of Shakespearean english-a high water mark in the literature.

Is that “finest using Arabic” or “finest per se”?

As you don’t speak Gaelic, I could claim something about a Gaelic poem, and you’d be (by your own rules) excluded from commenting. Except when have you ever followed your own rules of debate?

 

[Verisimilitude]

At the risk of being obvious, yes, you need to read Japanese to evaluate the poetic quality of Japanese language text. Maybe you like the ideas too-but the text itself can’t be judged as literary expression without, well, being read by a person who understands it.

How many letters and sounds are there to express the same language by the many cultures of the earth? There might be some validity to reading reading Plato in ancient Greek to get a particular nuance of some words, but no one suggetss the overall meaning is lost is diminshed because it is now printed in English…or Japanese. I think it is silly and incredably limiting to suggest the human language in one form is significantly different as any other in conveying any messege. If that were true, cracking the secret Japanese or German codes during WW2 would not be worthwhile.

As for what is wrong or right, what is your opinion on this bible passage?

My only opinion on it is that it was directed to the Jews, for the Jews of the time. The Jews were not commanded to convert others then or now. They were commanded to seperate themselves genetically by not mixing with other races and to remain pure in their belief if God for a purpose that was realized in Christ through Mary- a Jewish girl.

How do you decide that “fight the unbelievers” is wrong no matter where it appears, but avoid concluding that the Bible is wrong when it says to kill your sister if she asks you to worship another God?

If Mohammedeans limited their killing to their own faith as the Jews did at that time- it might be a different argument. But they do not and it isn’t. Why do you think the Jews of today do not continue with the premis you suggest?

 

[Verisimilitude]

Again, your claim here is simply not true.

I think it is true. I said above, the command to the Jews was for the Jews only, not the non-Jew. For a reason.

There is no time limit in that verse, nor is there any restriction. That looks remarkably like “kill the unbelievers no matter what”, to me.

Here’s some more from Deutoronomy 13:

Starting from the command to absolutely observe the rules laid down:

God commands in this book:

Again, no time limitations, no “only do it for this purpose.” Just a broad command to kill anyone who is of a different religion.

Do you think this teaching is right, or wrong?

There is a limitation- Where is the command to force convert the rest of the world to accept God as the Jews did? Do you think the Jews just grew out of it or are too weak to do it now? If there were a billion plus Jews instead of 15 million- do you think they would be fighting/killing all the non-believers as the Mohammedean culture?

For the thrid time- what do you believe?

 

[Booklover]

The American Thinker posted a very good article which deals with the arguments that Muslims bring up about God’s advocating violence in the OT to support what they’re doing today.

Muhammad’s Wars v. God’s Wars

We examine the Old Testament first.
The LORD listened to Israel’s plea and gave the Canaanites over to them. They completely destroyed them and their towns (Deut. 21:3)
In the Old Testament, sometimes (1) God commands all inhabitants of a region or town to be wiped out entirely, like Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 18:16—19:29). That is the big lesson of Genesis. If God had found even only five righteous in those two cities, then he would not have destroyed them. No region or town that had a hope of repentance is ever wiped out. [1] But when it is, then we can be sure that God is acting wisely and justly, even if our modern emotions do not like this aspect of God’s character.

1. God is very specific about who should be wiped out entirely, and who should live. He was not feeling His way, moving against one tribe in Canaan to the next in an ad—hoc way. He did not offer progressive revelations of letting some live and others die, as circumstance dictated. Rather, we can trust that since God knows the heart, if the Canaanites had to be wiped out entirely, then they were so degenerate that they were beyond hope—all of them, even the women and children.

(3) Also, God in the Old Testament was not interested in converting these pagans or at least influencing them for righteousness, but only because they were too far gone. Reading their hearts, He commands, rather, that they should be eliminated—an extreme measure to be sure, but for those who trust God it is a necessary extreme, because the pagans’ corrupting influence was so great that they had to be taken out. If peaceful co—existence were possible, then God would have ordained that; He did not purpose to kill them just for the sake of bloodshed or in a confused, ad—hoc way. Peace was always the better goal.

 

[Booklover]

cont.

We now turn to Muhammad and the Quran, in an analysis that mirrors the analysis of the Old Testament.
And fight them, so that sedition might end and the only religion will be that of Allah. Then if they desist, Allah is Fully Aware of what they do. (Quran 8:39, Fakhry’s translation)
In early Islam,
(1) Allah never commands Muhammad to wipe out all the inhabitants of a region or town in Arabia. Rather, Allah and his Prophet kill some and let others live, based on whether they accepted Islam (‘the only religion will be that of Allah’). If they desisted from fighting, then Muhammad should let them live. Is this mercy or confusion?

(2) If it is mercy, then this policy of letting some pagans live and killing others necessarily means that the pagans of Arabia were not as hopelessly degenerate as the utterly annihilated Canaanites were. But it is more accurate to say that the policy is ad hoc and confused. It is difficult to trust that Allah can read the pagans’ hearts, as Muhammad progressed in his revelations from peace with pagans (and Jews) to their deaths. Allah and Muhammad do not act thoroughly, but stumblingly, fluctuating between a treaty with the Meccans one year and war with them the next, between ransoming rich prisoners and selling the poor ones into slavery, between negotiating with some desert tribesmen and then it calling off, between ‘marrying’ female prisoners of war and selling them into slavery—all of which Muhammad did under Allah’s guidance. This zigzagging elicits a vote of no confidence and differs entirely from the (admittedly severe) clarity and thoroughness in the Old Testament.

1. Allah and Muhammad, then, are feeling their way because their ultimate goal was to convert the polytheists (and Jews). This means, again, that if he can convert some of the Arab polytheists to his monotheism, then they were not as degenerate and far gone as the targeted Canaanites were. After all, historically speaking, Christ appeared 600 years before Muhammad, and the Arab churches had some influence in Arabia (but not enough, apparently), so the ground of their hearts was broken up, so to speak, ready for Muhammad to plant the seeds of his own brand of monotheism. This means that Muhammad’s historical context should not be compared to the historical context of the verses in the Old Testament, separated as they are by 2,600 years and wide cultural differences.
   This last reason, which does not appear in the analysis of the Old Testament, above, provides further evidence that Muhammad is feeling his way and that the comparison is misguided.
2. His practice of killing was not limited to polytheists only; he also committed atrocities against Jews, who were not polytheists, but monotheists. Because the Jews of Medina held to the Torah and were taught by Rabbis, they were not as degenerate as the polytheists, whatever Muhammad says to the contrary in the Quran, calling them ‘apes’ and ‘pigs’ (Quran 2:65; 5:60), believing that they were not as righteous has he. At first, Muhammad wanted to be accepted by the Jews, which shows that he did not believe that they were as bad as polytheists. But they correctly rebuffed him as being outside of Biblical revelation. As the conflict with them grew and his power grew, Allah’s and Muhammad’s policy progressively changes, but never improves. He clears the Jews out of Medina first by exile (Qaynuqa tribe); then by besiegement and exile (Nadir tribe); and finally by extermination of the men (Qurayza tribe). (Read more about this policy on the Jews here.) Since Allah and Muhammad exert the same extreme practice of death on the monotheist Jews as well as on the polytheists, they seem confused, for Arab polytheists and Jewish monotheists were not the same, and certainly this situation differs entirely from the Canaanites of the Old Testament.

cont.

 

[Booklover]

cont.
Therefore, the wide differences between the true God’s specific and clear—cut (but extreme) policy enforced two millennia before Christ on the one hand, and Allah’s ad—hoc and confused (but extreme) policy enforced 600 years after Christ on the other hand, permanently shut out any clear parallels between the two policies. And the differences challenge whether Muhammad should have killed any polytheists or forced Islam on them with an army behind him. He managed to convert some peacefully. If he can convert them in that way, then they were not as degenerate as the Canaanite pagans and so not beyond hope. He should have kept on with this peaceful policy.
Thus, God’s severe clarity and Allah’s severe unclarity make the comparison between the two untenable.
To the Christian, this challenge to Muhammad’s misguided wars on polytheists is not surprising, for Christians believe that the coming of Christ 600 years before Muhammad ushered in a new era of salvation, a way to God that excels the one offered in the Old Testament, and much better than the one offered in the Quran or Muhammad. Christ died for all peoples everywhere—even for the Arab polytheists whom Muhammad slaughtered. His sacrificial death clears the way to heaven for everyone who believes and trusts in Christ. The Holy Spirit (who is not Gabriel) is available for all people, and he woos them to Christ, once the true Word of God is preached.

 

[Mirdath]

Except the early Christians were mostly ex-Jews. They had an inheretence they chose to share

And according to the Jews, they were heretics and blasphemers, profaning the faith of Abraham. What makes the Christians any better in their eyes than the johnny-come-latelies who claimed descent from Ishmael?

Great. But irrelevant. We are not Jews. What Christians know about Jesus, what they taught about him was not solely based on the OT. You simply choose to miss the point

But you regard the OT as divinely inspired and inerrant. Why?

Here it is again… we presently have witnesses to the truth and some show this by miracles and how they themselves change -with an aforetaste of what is to come.

And no other religion has witnesses? No other religion has miracles? No other religion changes peoples’ lives?

You ignore my answer about tradition.

We are discussing scripture, not tradition. Tradition does nothing to prove the Bible’s inerrancy in any case.

 

[hamba2han]

in other words, you will answer him : you are not being objective because the Quran has to be miraculous since it says so?

we can read Ali Dashti, the known Iranian-Arab scholar, has the following to say:

“Neither the Qur’an’s eloquence, nor it’s moral precepts are miraculous.”
Earlier on in the book, he discusses cases of other scholars who shared his point of view, such as the blind Syrian poet Abu 'l-Ala al Ma’arri, who Dashti describes as: “…a great and penetrating Arab thinker” (pg 53) and “…a great and universally admired poet-philosopher” (pg 94). This man considered some of his own works, to be on par with the Qur’an. If his evaluation of the facts is faulty, who then, if not a man of his learning, can be the judge of such a thing? Indeed even Muslim scholars in that age, did not believe that the Qur’an was untouchable in literary excellence. Here is a quote from Dashti concerning this:

“Among the muslim scholars of the early period, before bigotry and hyperbole prevailed, were some such as Ebrahim on-Nazzim who openly acknowleged that the arrangment and syntax of the Qur’an are not miraculous and that work of equal or greater value could be produced by other God-fearing persons”, ( pg 48)

Ali Dashti, “Twenty Three Years: A Study of the Prophetic Career of Mohammad”, Routledge Chapman & Hall, Mazda Pubs, Bibliotheca Iranica: Reprints Ser., Vol. No. 2., 1985.

What will your answer be? that all of them are biased and wrong right? because you already decided that the quran must be miraculous if it says so. Which means it is not even a challenge when you already decided the outcome and put yourself the judge.

Why didn’t this Ali Dashti guy and all the “other scholars who shared his point of view” just accept the Qur’anic challenge to produce a Surah like that is found in the Qur’an?

 

[Booklover]

Why didn’t this Ali Dashti guy and all the “other scholars who shared his point of view” just accept the Qur’anic challenge to produce a Surah like that is found in the Qur’an?

Oh no, not this nonsense again!

Producing a surah like it.

For me this is the clincher in the article:

There is a subtle but very real circularity for believing Muslims. The circularity goes like this: If you’re an orthodox Muslim, you believe that the entire Qur’an is the very word of God, and is therefore inerrant. As an implication of this, he or she also believes that there is no other writing as eloquent as the Qur’an. Therefore, any attempt to “produce a Sura like thereunto” must fail - thus verifying that the Qur’an is the very word of God and inerrant. In fact, the verse following the challenge affirms the impossibility of producing such a Sura, and threatens disbelievers with the Fire whose fuel is men and stones:

Muhammad sure knew how to use fear to keep his followers in check.

Vickie