Support NeoGAF

[Dresden]

Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was an uneducated, illiterate from the nomads of Arabia living during 570-638 AD. I don't think its very plausible that he would be able to come up with those scientific ideas himself.

As Muslims we believe that the Qur'an is the word of God revealed to the Prophet Muhammad. The verses that reference scientific discoveries that weren't discovered for hundreds of years later are one of the many signs of the Qur'an being the word of God.

In my opinion, the bigger sign is the complexity and structure of the Arabic within the Qur'an couldn't have been written by an illiterate. The best literary poets and writers in the Arabic language at the time have tried and were unable to produce pieces that even come close to the Qur'an.

I think it's more likely that the Qu'ran was tinkered with by other writers through the years, much like... every religious text in history.

 

[Manmademan]

I think it's more likely that the Qu'ran was tinkered with by other writers through the years, much like... every religious text in history.

this is sort of what I was getting at. also acceptable: the possibility that Muhammad had contemporary (to his time) collaborators.

 

[Complex Shadow]

The sun and moon aren't floating.

what about tides then. tides go in. tides go out. explain that fancy pants >=[

 

[wolfmat]

By the way, modern science is a bit past "Earth orbits around Sun", just in case you didn't know.

 

[Akia]

so your theory is that since it's too complex to have simply come from one guy on his own(Muhammad) then that means it MUST be the result of divine inspiration? you can't come up with any other possible scenarios? serious question.

If the Qur'an is too complex to come from one writer or group of writers in Arabia, and it was revealed in the purist form of Arabic where did it come from?

 

[wolfmat]

If the Qur'an is too complex to come from one writer or group of writers in Arabia, and it was revealed in the purist form of Arabic where did it come from?

How would you prove the bolded assumption if you didn't put together every possible combination of Arabic writers? *plop*

 

[KidA Seven]

what about tides then. tides go in. tides go out. explain that fancy pants >=[

I can easily explain that.


GOD.

 

[RustyNails]

I think it's more likely that the Qu'ran was tinkered with by other writers through the years, much like... every religious text in history.

Quran was memorized cover to cover over the course of 23 years by Muhammad's contemporaries. After the first Islamic civil war, the 3rd Caliph Uthman ordered the compilation of Quran into a book that we have today. Here's a lecture on the compilation of Quran by Uthman in some classroom setting.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2963640488220666019# (warning, its over an hour long)

Edited for a better quality

 

[Akia]

I think it's more likely that the Qu'ran was tinkered with by other writers through the years, much like... every religious text in history.

That's impossible, the Qur'an today is the same Qur'an from the time of the prophet. Many people have tried changing it over the years but the problem is that many people (hundreds/thousands) during the time of the Prophet memorized the entire Qur'an completely and on top of which review it daily in order to keep it in memory.

Whenever a group or an individual makes the tiniest of change to the Qur'an and then prints copies for public consumption their change is caught by the people who have it memorized. As of today, there are probably millions of people with the entire Qur'an memorized. That said there are probably people who have changed the Qur'an themselves and left it on their own bookshelf, irregardless of that but the Arabic Qur'an that you find worldwide is unchanged word for word text from the Prophet's time.

 

[Jasup]

If the Qur'an is too complex to come from one writer or group of writers in Arabia, and it was revealed in the purist form of Arabic where did it come from?

The question you should be asking is: Is Qur'an too complex to come from one writer or group of writers in Arabia?

 

[GhaleonQ]

It's about the same as Isaiah's "He sits, enthroned, above the circle of the Earth," (there's no known Hebrew word for "sphere," I believe) being early verification of a spherical planet. It may be, but it's not really worth pondering because of the variable interpretations.

 

[Wickerbasket]

That's impossible, the Qur'an today is the same Qur'an from the time of the prophet. Many people have tried changing it over the years but the problem is that many people (hundreds/thousands) during the time of the Prophet memorized the entire Qur'an completely and on top of which review it daily in order to keep it in memory.

Whenever a group or an individual makes the tiniest of change to the Qur'an and then prints copies for public consumption their change is caught by the people who have it memorized. As of today, there are probably millions of people with the entire Qur'an memorized.

Have you ever played a game called Chinese Whispers?

 

[GhaleonQ]

Have you ever played a game called Chinese Whispers?

Is only 1 Muslim or 1 Jew allowed to memorize things? Or did they marshal whole sections of their civilization to do it?

 

[Keikoku]

Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was an uneducated, illiterate from the nomads of Arabia living during 570-638 AD. I don't think its very plausible that he would be able to come up with those scientific ideas himself.

As Muslims we believe that the Qur'an is the word of God revealed to the Prophet Muhammad. The verses that reference scientific discoveries that weren't discovered for hundreds of years later are one of the many signs of the Qur'an being the word of God.

In my opinion, the bigger sign is the complexity and structure of the Arabic within the Qur'an couldn't have been written by an illiterate. The best literary poets and writers of the Arabic language at the time have tried and were unable to produce pieces that even come close to the Qur'an.

Riiiiiight.

 

[Dresden]

That's impossible, the Qur'an today is the same Qur'an from the time of the prophet. Many people have tried changing it over the years but the problem is that many people (hundreds/thousands) during the time of the Prophet memorized the entire Qur'an completely and on top of which review it daily in order to keep it in memory.

Whenever a group or an individual makes the tiniest of change to the Qur'an and then prints copies for public consumption their change is caught by the people who have it memorized. As of today, there are probably millions of people with the entire Qur'an memorized.

Variant Versions, Verses Missing, Verses Added (pp. 13-18)

Modern Muslims assert that the current Koran is identical to that recited by Muhammad. But earlier Muslims were more flexible. 'Uthman, A'isha, and Ibn Ka'b (among others) all insisted that much of the Koran had been lost.

Codices were made by different scholars (e.g. Ibn Mas'ud, Ubai ibn Ka'b, 'Ali, Abu Bakr, al-Aswad). 'Uthman's codex supposedly standardised the consonantal text, yet consonantal variations persisted into the 4th century AH. An unpointed and unvowelled script contributed to the problem. Also, although 'Uthman tried to destroy rival codices variant readings survived. Standardisation was not actually achieved until the 10th century under the influence of Ibn Mujahid. Even he admitted 14 versions of the Koran. These are not merely differences in recitation; they are actual written variations.

http://www.debate.org.uk/topics/books/origins-koran.html

Admittedly, the problem is that Ibn Warraq is a propagandist more than anything else. But I think it's silly to assume that the Qu'ran as it exists today is the same that was written back in the prophet's time.

 

[Akia]

The question you should be asking is: Is Qur'an too complex to come from one writer or group of writers in Arabia?

Like I said previously, the non-Muslims in Arabia at the time tried to gather the best people to try and match the Qur'an but the best of the best admitted that it couldn't be done. Just hearing the Qur'an recited out loud at that time blew their minds. There are verses in the Qur'an that are so complex that even today nobody knows their meaning (example Surat Al-Baqara 2:1).

 

[Pandaman]

That's impossible, the Qur'an today is the same Qur'an from the time of the prophet. Many people have tried changing it over the years but the problem is that many people (hundreds/thousands) during the time of the Prophet memorized the entire Qur'an completely and on top of which review it daily in order to keep it in memory.

Whenever a group or an individual makes the tiniest of change to the Qur'an and then prints copies for public consumption their change is caught by the people who have it memorized. As of today, there are probably millions of people with the entire Qur'an memorized. That said there are probably people who have changed the Qur'an themselves and left it on their own bookshelf, irregardless of that but the Arabic Qur'an that you find worldwide is unchanged word for word text from the Prophet's time.

you realize that the qu'ran you know was formed by popular decree from a collection of religious texts, much like the christian new testament?

its kinda easy to say you have a direct line to god when you burn every book that disagrees with you.

 

[Manmademan]

That's impossible, the Qur'an today is the same Qur'an from the time of the prophet. Many people have tried changing it over the years but the problem is that many people (hundreds/thousands) during the time of the Prophet memorized the entire Qur'an completely and on top of which review it daily in order to keep it in memory.

I'm hoping you see the obvious problem here- being that one would have to take it for granted that all of muhammad's contemporaries who memorized it had flawless memories (unlikely), as well as taking for granted that they were all being truthful about what was memorized.

I get where you're coming from here, I really do- but human beings, even devout ones, are fallible. Whenever you have the opportunity for human error or bias to creep in, it will.

Whenever a group or an individual makes the tiniest of change to the Qur'an and then prints copies for public consumption their change is caught by the people who have it memorized. As of today, there are probably millions of people with the entire Qur'an memorized. That said there are probably people who have changed the Qur'an themselves and left it on their own bookshelf, irregardless of that but the Arabic Qur'an that you find worldwide is unchanged word for word text from the Prophet's time.

and this can easily be proved false. How can I say this? simple. Different concepts exist across languages. There are concepts in Chinese, English, and Arabic that have no direct translation into another language. A muslim in Southeast Asia who memorizes the Koran in his native language is going to have a different interpretation that a muslim who does so in American English. The bible has the same problem. It simply isn't possible to directly translate it into english, so approximations have to do. and where approximations arise, people disagree.

hell, you can even take documents in the SAME language going back a few hundred years, and some things are practically unreadable to modern audiences. Try reading something in colonial-era english sometime.

 

[Wickerbasket]

Is only 1 Muslim or 1 Jew allowed to memorize things? Or did they marshal whole sections of their civilization to do it?

The game just shows how information can become corrupt through indirect communication.

As long as you arn't getting it directly from the source you can never be sure it's fully correct.

Chances of the Qur'an being the exact same as it was when Muhammad died are close to zero.

 

[RustyNails]

http://www.debate.org.uk/topics/books/origins-koran.html

Admittedly, the problem is that Ibn Warraq is a propagandist more than anything else. But I think it's silly to assume that the Qu'ran as it exists today is the same that was written back in the prophet's time.

Ibn Warraq is not even in the same league as Hamza Yusuf, let alone the same ballpark. Please watch the video I mentioned earlier.

 

[pnjtony]

Like I said previously, the non-Muslims in Arabia at the time tried to gather the best people to try and match the Qur'an but the best of the best admitted that it couldn't be done. Just hearing the Qur'an recited out loud at that time blew their minds. There are verses in the Qur'an that are so complex that even today nobody knows their meaning (example Surat Al-Baqara 2:1).

Of course they would say it couldn't be done, otherwise the whole thing would be discredited as coming from a god.

Saying that the words are so beautiful and complex that it must have come from a god is as ridiculous as saying threes are so beutiful and complex that they could not have come about naturally and therefor MUST have had a supernatual source.

Hogwash.

 

[Aristion]

Dang, the video was removed.

 

[Dresden]

Everyone needs to watch this video which completely proves that all the scientific "miracles" were already known by the ancient Greeks.

It's been removed.

The will of Allah has manifested itself.

 

[Akia]

By the way, modern science is a bit past "Earth orbits around Sun", just in case you didn't know.

That's true but we're talking about a text that was revealed in 610 AD. Also the OP mentions just a few of the many other verses that reference scientific material. I'm sure there's a comprehensive list of verses somewhere on the internet. There are many books written on the subject of Science in the Qur'an.

 

[Complex Shadow]

It's been removed.

The will of Allah has manifested itself.

ok i don't know why but i lold:lol

 

[RustyNails]

I'm hoping you see the obvious problem here- being that one would have to take it for granted that all of muhammad's contemporaries who memorized it had flawless memories (unlikely), as well as taking for granted that they were all being truthful about what was memorized.

I get where you're coming from here, I really do- but human beings, even devout ones, are fallible. Whenever you have the opportunity for human error or bias to creep in, it will.

No doubt, the human beings are fallible. But the problem is you're basing your criticism on assumption that Muhammad's contemporaries might have been less than truthful and were a bundle of memory goof ups, which is something hard to accept.

 

[Manmademan]

Of course they would say it couldn't be done, otherwise the whole thing would be discredited as coming from a god.

Saying that the words are so beautiful and complex that it must have come from a god is as ridiculous as saying threes are so beutiful and complex that they could not have come about naturally and therefor MUST have had a supernatual source.

Hogwash.

that, and beauty and complexity are highly subjective. My GF's catholic parents swear up and down that the bible is the best reading there is. (I disagree.)

but to say that there's "no debate" that the Qur'an is indisputably and unquestionably the most beautiful written work in existence across all of human history is kind of an asinine claim, when there is no consensus here- especially when you leave a predominantly muslim country.

Is the Qur'an unquestionably a "more beautiful" work than anything written by Shakespeare? by Homer? The symphonies of Mozart or Beethoven? There are billions of people who would disagree with you here, and if you have even room for debate, the theory that it's somehow "too complex" and must be divine starts to fall apart.

No doubt, the human beings are fallible. But the problem is you're basing your criticism on assumption that Muhammad's contemporaries might have been less than truthful and were a bundle of memory goof ups, which is something hard to accept.

Lots of things are hard to accept, but to completely ignore that such an event is even POSSIBLE (as is the possibility that the work evolved through time) is just dishonest.

 

[Dresden]

No doubt, the human beings are fallible. But the problem is you're basing your criticism on assumption that Muhammad's contemporaries might have been less than truthful and were a bundle of memory goof ups, which is something hard to accept.

I think the assumption is that Muhammad's contemporaries were human, and prone to do things that humans do well--lie, forget, and misinterpret out of self-interest.

 

[Manmademan]

I think the assumption is that Muhammad's contemporaries were human, and prone to do things that humans do well--lie, forget, and misinterpret out of self-interest.

This also. we're not picking on the Qur'an- scroll up. Others here have noted that this is something that happens to nearly every work throughout history, written or otherwise and I specifically called out the bible as an example where we specifically know this to have happened.

 

[WillyFive]

It's about the same as Isaiah's "He sits, enthroned, above the circle of the Earth," (there's no known Hebrew word for "sphere," I believe) being early verification of a spherical planet. It may be, but it's not really worth pondering because of the variable interpretations.

The original word used would be directly translated as "compass", which obviously can be used for land, kingdoms, and the sort. It can mean part of or the whole Earth. While it has been used for sphere planet discussions, it doesn't really do much to sway either side, because they are both talking about text that is unrelated to the discussion.

 

[xbhaskarx]

so your theory is that since it's too complex to have simply come from one guy on his own(Muhammad) then that means it MUST be the result of divine inspiration? you can't come up with any other possible scenarios? serious question.

Many religious people, like paranoid conspiracy theory nutcases, are not always quite so ready to apply Occam's Razor to all situations.

 

[Akia]

I'm hoping you see the obvious problem here- being that one would have to take it for granted that all of muhammad's contemporaries who memorized it had flawless memories (unlikely), as well as taking for granted that they were all being truthful about what was memorized.

I get where you're coming from here, I really do- but human beings, even devout ones, are fallible. Whenever you have the opportunity for human error or bias to creep in, it will.

There is a possibility of human error but given the amount of people that have it memorized the risk of that creeping into the text is small. In the past before the printing press, when a mistake in the text was found it was flagged by others and taken out. I'm not going to say that Prophet's Muhammad's contemporaries had 100% flawless memories but it was up there. They were very well known for having great memories.

Just an aside, to prove you have the entire Qur'an memorized correctly you have to get tested by reciting the entire thing without looking at the book perfectly. If you pass that test then you get you certificate saying that you memorized it from "So and So who memorized it from So and So....going back name by name until you reach the final name being The Prophet Muhammad". Its pretty rad that there's a direct line and that all the different lines lead to the same source. I had a friend who got his certificate a couple of years ago. Many people memorize the entire Qur'an but don't get tested for a certificate, because they're just memorizing to benefit themselves and not to teach others.

and this can easily be proved false. How can I say this? simple. Different concepts exist across languages. There are concepts in Chinese, English, and Arabic that have no direct translation into another language. A muslim in Southeast Asia who memorizes the Koran in his native language is going to have a different interpretation that a muslim who does so in American English. The bible has the same problem. It simply isn't possible to directly translate it into english, so approximations have to do. and where approximations arise, people disagree.

hell, you can even take documents in the SAME language going back a few hundred years, and some things are practically unreadable to modern audiences. Try reading something in colonial-era english sometime.

I was talking about the way the text is written letter by letter word by word. Not the meaning or translation. The way that the Arabic is written the words, the accents on the letters and the letters themselves are the same as they were back then. Like you point out interpretation and translations are a very different matter.

 

[Aristion]

Pliny the Elder in Natural History bk. II ch. 64 (1st Century A.D.):

"Every one agrees that it has the most perfect figure1. We always speak of the ball of the earth, and we admit it to be a globe bounded by the poles. It has not indeed the form of an absolute sphere, from the number of lofty mountains and flat plains; but if the termination of the lines be bounded by a curve2, this would compose a perfect sphere."

Pliny must be a prophet! He knew that the Earth was spherical! What does the Qur'an say about astronomy?

"He [i.e. Zul-qarnain] followed, until he reached the setting of the sun. He found it set in a spring of murky water."
(Surah 18 ayat 85-86)

Zul-qarnain (i.e. Alexander the Great), found the place where the Sun set. Apparently, it sets in a pool of murky water. Even funnier, the Qur'an states that Alexander was a monotheistic Muslim...

 

[Lost Fragment]

First, it doesn't automatically mean a book was written by Allah or God or whoever just because it contains references to things that have been proven accurate by modern science, just as it doesn't automatically mean it wasn't written by God because it contains things that aren't scientifically accurate. I've never read the Qu'ran, but I suspect that for every scientific accuracy, there's something else that doesn't reflect reality as science currently sees it.

Second, while the Islamic Golden Age is generally considered to have "officially" begun a century or two after Muhammad's time, the area was still among the most scientifically advanced civilizations in the world, and astronomy (and math, which is relevant. See also: algebra) was one of their specialties. It's not so beyond the realm of possibility that there are parts of the Qu'ran that were inspired by the scientific climate of their civilization that the only other explanation is that God did it. Unless that's the answer you're looking for in the first place, I guess.

 

[Purkake4]

Que surah, surah.

10/10

 

[ronito]

It's science....OF MERCY!!!

 

[phisheep]

Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was an uneducated, illiterate from the nomads of Arabia living during 570-638 AD. I don't think its very plausible that he would be able to come up with those scientific ideas himself.

As Muslims we believe that the Qur'an is the word of God revealed to the Prophet Muhammad. The verses that reference scientific discoveries that weren't discovered for hundreds of years later are one of the many signs of the Qur'an being the word of God.

In my opinion, the bigger sign is the complexity and structure of the Arabic within the Qur'an couldn't have been written by an illiterate. The best literary poets and writers of the Arabic language at the time have tried and were unable to produce pieces that even come close to the Qur'an.

With the greatest of respect to you and to the Prophet (peace be upon him), I don't believe that this sort of errant analysis is to the credit of Islam, nor of any benefit in understanding the Qur'an.

As to the science, it isn't modern - or at least not so much that it is necessarly informed by anything other than the science known at the time. Astronomy in particular was far more widely studied and known about in ancient times than it is now. Light pollution has a great deal to answer for - it astonishes me how many people I find who have never even looked at the stars with any serious curiosity. Similarly the rain cycle was well understood thousands of years before.

As for illiteracy and lack of education well, these don't mean that a person is stupid. In modern Western societies we may tend to think that - indeed "illiterate" is often used as shorthand for stupidity - but I've met very many illiterate people who were bright, smart, persuasive and extremely good at following complex arguments and logic (far more so than many literate people who rely on books). Literacy by itself is not all it is cracked up to be.

It is clear that the Prophet (peace be upon him) spoke with and learnt from many people. He was at the very least a gregarious and sociable person. And he lived at a time when science was close to a peak and literacy was on a sharp rise in the Arab world.

It does not seem to me to be necessary to make extravagant and possibly unsustainable claims about the origins of the Qur'an in order to respect Islam - and it may be counter-productive in that it leads to arguments that are far from the aims and objects of Islam.

To address your particular points:

I don't think its very plausible that he would be able to come up with those scientific ideas himself.

Well, no, but he spoke to lots of people and travelled a great deal, it is not like he lived in a vacuum. Far from it. He listened to and learnt from others, and it isn't blasphemy to say so. So do all of us.

The verses that reference scientific discoveries that weren't discovered for hundreds of years later are one of the many signs of the Qur'an being the word of God.

The verses that unequivocally refer to scientific discoveries refer to discoveries made in ancient times. Not all science is modern. As for the others - they are stretches of interpretation.

In my opinion, the bigger sign is the complexity and structure of the Arabic within the Qur'an couldn't have been written by an illiterate.

Probably it could have been. It comes as a surprise to Westerners just how creative and compelling the words of so-called illiterates can be because they are so used to illiterates being labelled stupid. At some stage the Prophet learned to write. I don't see there being any problem with what he then wrote being whatever it is.

Let's be clear here. I'm not saying that the Qur'an is therefore not the word of Allah. All I'm saying is that these arguments don't go any distance to proving that it is.


I'm trying to be reasonable and balanced here. Let's hope nobody takes it the wrong way!

 

[raphier]

For every verse which can be interpreted as depicting modern science, there are others that contain clear flaws. It's much more plausible to think that out of all the ideas thrown in the book some turn out to be hits - it's more based on luck than anything. If you want to talk about hits, you have to take the misses into consideration.

I'd wager on pure common sense. There is plenty of "No shit" material about the world that the people of that time could have depicted by brain.

 

[Jasup]

Like I said previously, the non-Muslims in Arabia at the time tried to gather the best people to try and match the Qur'an but the best of the best admitted that it couldn't be done. Just hearing the Qur'an recited out loud at that time blew their minds. There are verses in the Qur'an that are so complex that even today nobody knows their meaning (example Surat Al-Baqara 2:1).

A) such claims have been done about other holy books (Bible and Book of Mormon for example), that are said to reveal things that confused the sceptics in their time and still do.

B) the prophecies of Nostradamus are complex and cryptic, and even today nobody knows their meaning. It doesn't mean anything but that the writings are complex.

C) the Qur'an is clearly influenced by the culture of Eastern Roman Empire as it's based on the two older Abrahamic religions. It bounds from a cultural heritage that has developed high level of technology and science, numerous works of literature, philosophy, plays, epics, religions and so on. And yet the Qur'an was managed to be written in some kind of cultural vacuum so it can be described as divinely inspirated?

 

[Instigator]

Dang, the video was removed.

Clearly Iblis is behind it, helping the nonbelievers cast evil suggestions in the heart of honest and humble Muslims in this thread.

 

[Manmademan]

I'm trying to be reasonable and balanced here. Let's hope nobody takes it the wrong way!

you're coming across as very reasonable and balanced here, thanks.

 

[RustyNails]

Lots of things are hard to accept, but to completely ignore that such an event is even POSSIBLE (as is the possibility that the work evolved through time) is just dishonest.

Yes, but again, it is an assumption. It could have been true, but there are some facts on the ground. You're completely overlooking the lengths to which the early Islamic leaders went to preserve the Quran, starting with Muhammad's father-in-law (the 1st Caliph) Abu Baqr and ending with the 3rd Caliph Uthman. The leaders were very much aware of the human fallibility you are talking about.

 

[Lost Fragment]

OT, but what's with the "(peace be upon him)" stuff? Are Muslims not allowed to invoke Muhammad's name without saying that or something? Or is it just some kind of informal show of respect like how Christians capitalize "he" and "him" when referencing God? Just curious.

 

[Neuromancer]

Wait you mean the sun doesn't go down into a muddy spring?

My god I've been a fool all these years.

 

[Akia]

"He [i.e. Zul-qarnain] followed, until he reached the setting of the sun. He found it set in a spring of murky water."
(Surah 18 ayat 85-86)

Zul-qarnain (i.e. Alexander the Great), found the place where the Sun set. Apparently, it sets in a pool of murky water. Even funnier, the Qur'an states that Alexander was a monotheistic Muslim...

When it comes to interpreting verses of the Qur'an, I would reference Tafsir Ibn Kathir which is a very, very well known and respected verse by verse interpretation complied by Ibn Kathir in 1300s. Read this link for the Ibn Kathir's interpretation of those verses on the sun setting: http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=18&tid=30770

As far as I know the exact identity of Dhul-Qarnayn is not known and is not specified in the Qur'an.

 

[Manmademan]

Yes, but again, it is an assumption. It could have been true, but there are some facts on the ground. You're completely overlooking the lengths to which the early Islamic leaders went to preserve the Quran, starting with Muhammad's father-in-law (the 1st Caliph) Abu Baqr and ending with the 3rd Caliph Uthman. The leaders were very much aware of the human fallibility you are talking about.

Any situation where you do not have first hand knowledge is an assumption, RustyNails. This includes the lengths you assume early islamic leaders went through to preserve the Qur'an.

My point to the original poster is that just because one situation (muhammad as an illiterate making it all up himself) was implausible, does not mean that another situation (it's divinely inspired) MUST be true.

 

[Akia]

OT, but what's with the "(peace be upon him)" stuff? Are Muslims not allowed to invoke Muhammad's name without saying that or something? Or is it just some kind of informal show of respect like how Christians capitalize "he" and "him" when referencing God? Just curious.

This should give you a general idea. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_be_upon_him_(Islam)

 

[Wickerbasket]

This whole arguement is stupid. Whether they believe it has changed or not doesn't really matter.

Let us for a second assume that the modern Qur'an is the very same as it was in Mohammad's time, that still doesn't mean the Qur'an is any more divine than any other religious text.

 

[RustyNails]

Any situation where you do not have first hand knowledge is an assumption, RustyNails. This includes the lengths you assume early islamic leaders went through to preserve the Qur'an.

I'm not assuming here. Their initiatives to preserve the Quran is thoroughly documented.

My point to the original poster is that just because one situation (muhammad as an illiterate making it all up himself) was implausible, does not mean that another situation (it's divinely inspired) MUST be true.

This I have no problem agreeing with.

 

[xbhaskarx]

As of today, there are probably millions of people with the entire Qur'an memorized.

If the Qur'an is too complex to come from one writer or group of writers in Arabia

How can a book be memorized by millions of people yet at the same time be too complex to come from a group of writers?

Hell, how can ANYTHING be too complex to come from a group of writers? At the end of the day it's just a collection of words....