How can Muslims be assured that the Qur'an is the Word of God?

[Affectionate]

Muslims are assured for several reasons that the Qur’an is indeed the Word of God. Here are eight reasons :

1. Physical incapacity.
The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was physically incapable to write the Qur’an. History has him as an unlettered man who could not write anything more than his own name. How could he write a book?

2. Sincerity.
The Prophet (peace be upon him) was morally constrained to tell the truth about the origin of the Qur’an. He was noted to be so honest and trustworthy that even his enemies called him al-Amin (the trustworthy). Moreover, he suffered persecution, refused offers to compromise, and maintained his message for a period of twenty-three years. Historians of religion have to conclude that he was sincere.

3. Psychology.
The Qur’an speaks to the Prophet, commands him, and even criticizes him. Such contents do not point to the Prophet (peace be upon him) as the self-conscious author. On the other hand, the author declares himself to be the creator of the heavens and the earth.

4. History.
The Prophet (peace be upon him) was incapable of writing the Qur’an. The Qur’an details items of history which were not known to the Prophet (peace be upon him) or his contemporaries. And independent studies confirm that the Qur’an was true in what it said.

5. Prophecy.
The Qur’an speaks prophetically, detailing what the future holds. Then the future unfolds exactly as foretold. Who could author such a book?

6. Science.
The Qur’an draws attention to a wide range of physical phenomena in order to teach moral lessons. The statements were not meant to teach science. Yet modern scientists are amazed at the accuracy of these statements. For example, the Qur’an said things about the growth and development of the human embryo which could not be studied without the use of a microscope. Dr. Keith Moore was professor and chairman of the Department of Anatomy at the University of Toronto. After reviewing the Qur’anic statements he said: "I am amazed at the accuracy of these statements which were already made in the 7th century AD." Such knowledge in the Qur’an points to God as its source.

7. Consistency.
The Qur’an challenges skeptics to find errors in it, which, if found, would disprove its divine claim. But no one has yet been able to point to a real error in it.

8. Inimitability.
A unique feature of the Qur’an is that no one is able to produce a book that would match its beauty, eloquence and wisdom. The Qur’an itself challenges humankind to produce even a chapter like it. But no one has been able to do it.

These eight reasons together form a strong cumulative case in favor of the Qur’an’s divine origin. Hence Muslims can be confident that the belief of Islam, which is based on the Qur’an, is true.

Author :Shabir Ally

Source: http://www.inv2islam.com/en/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=48&Itemid=2

 

[iBrian]

If you are trying to teach Muslims that the Qur'an is supposed to be from God, then I am suitably impressed by your revelation.

However, if you wish to discuss the issue as to whether non-Muslims view these arguments put forward as valid, then should I move this topic to another board, where indeed they can be more properly discussed?

 

[truevoice]

Yes there is some scope for discussion.

The Holy Quran, it is claimed, has come down from heaven in pure Arabic.
How can Affectionate explain the large number of foreign non-Arabic words that have been used in the Holy Quran.

For example:

'Pharaoh' is not Arabic but an Egyptian word that has been used 84 times.

'Adam' and 'Eden' are not Arabic but are Accadian words that have been used 24 times. The Arabic equivalent of 'Adam' would have been 'basharan' or 'insaan'. The pure Arabic for 'Eden' would have been 'janna' meaning garden.

There are many other such instances in the Holy Quran.

Why would Allah use non-Arabic words in a book that 'Allah' claims is in pure
Arabic? Perhaps Affectionate can answer this one.

Truevoice

 

[mansio]

Each of the eight reasons can be discussed.
Let's see reason #1 :
The word ummiyy in the Quran doesn't only mean that one cannot write. It means also "who has not received a Scripture from God".
Muhammad dictated his revelations, so what is the need for knowing how to write. If he could write he would have dictated his revelations anyway, because important people always had secretaries.

 

[mansio]

I,Brian
You asked Affectionate if you could move the thread. Then you moved it. Did Affectionate answer you "yes, you can" or was there another reason ?

 

[Affectionate]

Thanks for your responds..

Brian.. i posted this article in the forum Islam.. the discreption of this forum is "
Islam and Islamic issues: discussions of the Muslim Faith. "

so i don't think this forum was make to teach muslims!..

If you are trying to teach Muslims that the Qur'an is supposed to be from God...

it includes topics about "discussions of the Muslim Faith"

so i have no comment about the sarcasm i feel from your words!

thanks any way..


truevoice, mansio

i've been really busy recent days... i'll answer you soon by the will of Allah.. *flower*

 

[Affectionate]

'Pharaoh' is not Arabic but an Egyptian word that has been used 84 times

Pharoh as we all know is the king of egyptians.. but not as any other kings.. because egyptians thought that he is the son of god.. so we can't call him King or Emperor.. he is Pharoh in english.. in arabic he is "Fer'aoun" and this word was used before The Holy Qur'an has come down from heaven ! so "Fer'aoun" in arabic or "pharoh" in english is an arabic word.. used before Quran...

About "Adam" it's a proper name.. in english, french, spanish and arabic .. it's written as it is.. "Adam".. as you say "Muhammad".. is muhammad an english word? no .. it's a Name

The Arabic equivalent of 'Adam' would have been 'basharan' or 'insaan'

The difference between Adam and 'bashraan','insaan'
is the same difference between Adam and 'human' in english.. it's a problem of translation!..

i wish i gave you the answer you want.. sorry for any miss understood.. and sorry for my poor english.. *flower*

 

[Affectionate]

Each of the eight reasons can be discussed.
Let's see reason #1 :
The word ummiyy in the Quran doesn't only mean that one cannot write. It means also "who has not received a Scripture from God".

The Word ummiyy in arabic means simply the one who can't read or write at all.. he can only say words.. but not individual letters .. like:

he can say : mansio
but he can't say : "M" or "A" because he don't know letters!

in Qur'an there are verses begin with simple letters.. like in

The Family of Imran

In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.
[3.1] Alif Lam Mim.

source: http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/k/koran/koran-idx?type=DIV0&byte=72808

'Alif' and 'Lam' and 'Mim' is arabic letters.. like A, B and C in english..

Muhammad pbuh was the first one to recite it.. how could he do that when he is ummiyy ? that's what the writer mean..

Thanks every one

 

[mansio]

#1) You said "How could he write a book?". If he couldn't write he could have the Quran written by other people.
#2) All founders of religions are believed by their followers to be sincere. Ask a Mormon if he thinks his prophet Joseph Smith was sincere or not.
That's not an argument. You can sincerely believe that something false is true.

 

[iBrian]

I,Brian
You asked Affectionate if you could move the thread. Then you moved it. Did Affectionate answer you "yes, you can" or was there another reason ?

I was asking aloud, not expecting a reply - thipps decided to move it.

Brian.. i posted this article in the forum Islam.. the discreption of this forum is "
Islam and Islamic issues: discussions of the Muslim Faith. "

so i don't think this forum was make to teach muslims!..


it includes topics about "discussions of the Muslim Faith"

so i have no comment about the sarcasm i feel from your words!

We get hit quite regularly by Muslims looking to use CR to directly promote Islam at non-Muslims. Most are one-hit wonders, who never return, so thanks for at least returning to answer points raised.

However, it was posted in the Islam forum - where other Muslims discuss issues raised with one another, and reply to questions about Islam. So your posting AT Muslims that they should regard the Qur'an as the word as God loopked pretty much like witnessing Islam at Muslims.

Anyway, as to your arguments:

1. Physical incapacity.

He didn't write it, though - it was written and attributed to him.

I'm sure there are Atheist arguments claiming the composition of the Qur'an as written communally under Uthman, in a way very much parallel to the situation of the major British literary talent, William Shakespeare.

2. Sincerity.

Sincerity is not equivalent to having ownership of Objective Truth. I'm told that Joseph Smith was sincere when he claimed to have found the Book of Mormon and translated it. By your argument, Mormonism is equally true to Islam.

3. Psychology.

The Torah/Old Testament texts are scathing about Jewish religious history - pretty much all the major figures have major flaws. So your arguments have now validated a second religion outside of Islam.

4. History.

Islam formed at the major trading crossroads of the Byzantine and Persian empires - which had very strong literary traditions that Islam later protected. Why would it be so difficult for knowledge to be transported with the spice caravans?

5. Prophecy.

It doesn't tell us exactly what the future holds any more than Revelations does - it tells of allegory and symbolism rather than specific events.

6. Science.

It would seem very disingenious for Islam to claim to uphold science, when there is a rampant disregard for scientific theory, not least evolution. If the Qur'an and Science as we know it are clearly in conflict, then this argument cannot hold.

7. Consistency.

I've seen claim of errors - but those arguments aside, a text written in a very short time frame as compared to Judaism and Christianity is by its very nature going to suffer less from claims of inconsistency that these religion's texts suffer. So this is a non-argument.

8. Inimitability.

By this argument, William Shakespeare, and any other major literary figures in any culture must also be prophets of God?



Summary - none of the arguments really makes a claim that the Qur'an is from God.

2c for discussion.

 

[namesdontmatter]

We get hit quite regularly by Muslims looking to use CR to directly promote Islam at non-Muslims.

I don't want to be among those that hit you, but I would like to respond to some claims.

It doesn't tell us exactly what the future holds any more than Revelations does - it tells of allegory and symbolism rather than specific events.

The Roman Empire has been defeated in a land close by; but they, even after this defeat, will gain victory in a few years. Allah’s is the command, in the past and in the future. On that day shall the believers rejoice, with the help of Allah, He helps whom He wills. And He is the mighty and the most Merciful. It is the promise of Allah. Allah never departs from His promise: but most men understand not. They crave for the outer things of life, but of the hereafter they are heedless.

This is one of many prophecies sent by God in the Qur'an. It was sent after the Roman Empire suffered a major defeat from the Persians, and a FEW years before Heraclius, the Byzantine Roman Emperor, took out the Persians in the battle of Niveveh.

It would seem very disingenious for Islam to claim to uphold science, when there is a rampant disregard for scientific theory, not least evolution. If the Qur'an and Science as we know it are clearly in conflict, then this argument cannot hold.

Please show me where the Qur'an conflicts with science. I've never seen it.

Perhaps I can show you many places where it coincides with science, if you like. It is not a book sent to teach us of the workings of the universe, but it does offer many scientific wonders that amaze the minds of men who are observant.

I'm not going to promote Islam to you unless you ask, just saying that some of the things you said about the Qur'an were false.

--Would a rose, by any other...?

 

[tectrikz]

The Roman Empire has been defeated in a land close by; but they, even after this defeat, will gain victory in a few years. Allah’s is the command, in the past and in the future. On that day shall the believers rejoice, with the help of Allah, He helps whom He wills. And He is the mighty and the most Merciful. It is the promise of Allah. Allah never departs from His promise: but most men understand not. They crave for the outer things of life, but of the hereafter they are heedless.


This is one of many prophecies sent by God in the Qur'an. It was sent after the Roman Empire suffered a major defeat from the Persians, and a FEW years before Heraclius, the Byzantine Roman Emperor, took out the Persians in the battle of Niveveh.

Making a Claim that the Roman Empire will suffer a defeat and then a few years later will gain victory isn’t really prophecy. You can say that about any war, let’s take WW2 someone could have said before it started that Russia will be defeated by a land close by then a few years later it will gain victory. Well the Germans pushed Russia back all the way to Moscow and Russia lost many battles, but in the end they fought back and took Berlin.

Almost every conflict can make claims like this, like right now I will make a prophecy that in the next 200 years America will suffer a great defeat in the Middle East. Now, I would be very surprised if that didn’t come true with oil running out and countries willing to fight for it. Does that make me a prophet no, but all prophecies are the same, just make them vague and then wait for an event in history that can fit it.

 

[Amica]

Peace/salaam.

There was a comment about Qur'an's claim of being revealed in pure Arabic language. I do not see what the problem is here at all.

Arabia during Prophet Muhammad's (pbuh) time was a center of trade. There were people coming from many different countries, who spoke different languages, who visited Arabia and its people. Trade was big in Arabia. As we know from experience with our own languages, there are vocabulary that may originate from a foreign language. For example, in my native language there are vocabulary derived from German ( example: fajn=meaning informally 'good'), Arabic (insan==human being), French (avion==ariplane), Italian (ciao==hi/bye), etc. Despite the origin of the vocabulary, the native speakers of my language understand it perfectly well and many of them are not even aware that the words are not trully coming from our language. If you ask them, they would say it is a pure Bosnian language, because they understand it perfectly.

When Allah Almighty in the Qur'an states: 'pure Arabic' it is meant that those Arabs who claimed not to understand the revelation had no backing at all in their reasoning. After all, why would Almighty God send a revelation with words that are not understood by the population that it was sent to? Even if the vocabulary are not 100% arabic in nature, it is absurd to claim that they were not understood perfectly by the Arabs during the Qur'anic Revelation. If this were the case, Allah Almighty would not have to respond in the Qur'an to their 'arguments' against the Truth of the Book. Usually rejectors of Islam argued about the Day of Resurrection, or the beliefs they had, etc. They ridiculed the belief of the Judgement Day, or that there is this One Great God who can be communicated with without idols.

 

[Amica]

In regards to the comments to the Prophecy:

Someone said that Qur'an does not speaks much of the prophecy any more than the Revelation of the N.T. True. For good reason.

The Noble Qur'an states that the future is known only to God and He reveals to us what He wants and when He wants. Qur'an never claims to provide a prophecy A--Z, just like Revelations. But it does provide us with clear clues that we only can be mindful of and watchful about. One prophecy is extraterrestial life. Qur'an states that there exist life in the universe other than on Earth. Humans have been searching for it, but as of now we still do not have a clear proof of it.

But even if there is 'no prophecy in' the Noble Qur'an, the Qur'an is meant to be a warning and confirmation of earlier Revelations. Prophet Muhammad, pbuh, is described in the Book to be a Prophet and a Warner. His mission was to deliver the Message, to warn of the Judgement and live by it.

If you think about the sequence of the Revelations:
1) Old Testament and earlier lost Messages were the beginning
2) New Testament is the Mercy before the Judgement
3) Qur'an the last warning and last message, preceding the Judgement.

No Holy Scriptures made such strong effect on humanity as did the Bible and Qur'an. Yes, there are many new 'religions' and many new sects with their own holy books, but not one made as much impact as the Bible and Qur'an.

 

[Amica]

In regards to Muhammad pbuh not being able to write and why he did not have others write the verses of Qur'an instead of him:

The answer to this question has two parts.

1) Arabic culture at the time was very much oral.
2) Qur'an speaks of verses being written on leaves and such, being touched only by those clean. This implies that during the Revelation of Qur'an, the verses were being written down by the followers of Islam. It is only that the book format of the Qur'an came later.

Even today there are people who are not able to read or write, yet if you test them they are able to recite the Qur'an. This is simply because they memorized it. If one studies the Qur'an's surahs (chapters), he/she will find that they are easy to remember in Arabic language. Once you memorize them, you can't forget them regardless of the fact whether one is Arab Muslim or not.

 

[mansio]

Heraclius, the Byzantine emperor, was defeated by the Persians in 614 (they took Jerusalem), and eventually he beat the Persians in Niniveh in 627.
Muhammad died in 632.
So where's the proof of a "prophecy" saying that the Romans/Byzantines were defeated and will gain victory, years before Muhammad's death ?

Saying that a memorized Quran will never be forgotten is wishful thinking. Why would Muhammad's companions have bothered to supplement the memorization by the nearly stenographic writings on whatever support they could find ?

 

[n4h1z]

Peace to all....

Heraclius, the Byzantine emperor, was defeated by the Persians in 614 (they took Jerusalem), and eventually he beat the Persians in Niniveh in 627.
Muhammad died in 632.
So where's the proof of a "prophecy" saying that the Romans/Byzantines were defeated and will gain victory, years before Muhammad's death ?

Saying that a memorized Quran will never be forgotten is wishful thinking. Why would Muhammad's companions have bothered to supplement the memorization by the nearly stenographic writings on whatever support they could find ?

Firstly i would like to quote the Surah from the Quran that which relates the defeat of Rome and the victory they'll soon gain from Surah Ar-Rum (the Romans).

" The Roman Empire has been defeated- " 30:2

"In a land close by; but they, (even) after (this) defeat of theirs, will soon be victorious- " 30:3

"Within a few years. With Allah is the Decision, in the past and in the Future: on that Day shall the Believers rejoice-" 30:4

This Surah was revealed to Phrophet Muhammad PBUH before the Hijrah to Medina. All the revelations b4 the Hijrah is acategorized under Makkiyah Surahs. Allah (God) appoint Muhammad PBUH as His Messenger when Muhammad PBUH is 40 years old which is in 610 c.e. The Hijrah only happen in 622 C.E. Here we can conclude that this surah was revealed between 610 - 622 C.E. This surah was revealed when the Romans have been defeated. By 611 the Persians had conquered all northern Syria, and established themselves at Antioch. In 615 they conqured Palestine. Eventually in not more than 10 years the Romans manage to drive the Persians out between 622-624.

The Romans (Byzantium) were Christians (People of the book) meanwhile the Persians were Mageans (fire & idols worshipper in other words they were pagans). When the news of Rome's defeat reached Makkah, the Makkaeans musyrik(pagans) were jovial for they are pagans like the persians thus they are siding the Persians. But for the Muslims, they were saddened by the defeat of Rome because the Romans are Christians and are monotheistic like them. Then Allah revealed these verses to Muhammad PBUH (614 C.E.)which foretells the victory of the Romans over Persian in just a few years time... And it really happened. So here we can see clearly that the Quran have foretold the future when in 622-624 the Romans Gain victory over Persian subsequent to the time of the verses's revelation in 614.
This is also a clear sign that the Quran is the true word of God because only God has control over the future....and also it is a sign that Muhammad PBUH is a true prophet of God because nobody is worthy to receive revelations from God unless he is a Prophet appointed by God Himself.

Here's a usefull link--> http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11712a.htm
I hope this could answer your question...
Peace

 

[mansio]

Historians are not very sure about which verse was revealed in Mecca and which one in Madina.
In the same chapter there may be verses from both.
Anyway the Quran we have now is not the original writings from Muhammad's time, which were destroyed, but the recension of Uthman.
Moreover all the descriptions of how that recension was made are from later traditions.
So there is no proof that the verses 30:3-4 were written down before 622.
The Persian were Zoroastrians, who are included among monotheists. At least they are not considered as pagans.

 

[Light]

Hi all,

Mansio --

Historians are not very sure about which verse was revealed in Mecca and which one in Madina.
In the same chapter there may be verses from both.

Historian are human beings like us and they can make mistakes. Quran does not. AS you rightly say verses revealed in Mecca and Madina can exists in the same chapter. That is the beauty of Quran. The arrangement of the ayah (sentences) and surah is unique. Firstly, it is not a story book, that you can read from front to back. It is a book that contains a lot of facts.

I have see that hunain have listed some useful video of Dr Zakir Naik who discusses about this topic. Please view them as he presents it is a more appropriate and simplified way for us who would like to find the truth. Especially at passing the Quran through a falsification test.

Anyway the Quran we have now is not the original writings from Muhammad's time, which were destroyed, but the recension of Uthman.
Moreover all the descriptions of how that recension was made are from later traditions.

Well, this is your perception based on your own finding at this time. First and foremost, I congratulate you for taking the effort to research into this topic. It is commendable as it increases your knowledge which is always encouraged by Islam.

The Quran we have now is the original writings from Muhammad's time primarily due to that it was memorised by all the companions during that time.

Saying that a memorized Quran will never be forgotten is wishful thinking.

This is not a wishful thinking as it is hapenning and still is hapenning now. There are a lot of Muslims who memorises the whole Quran and this is not just the imam, even the normal people like us. By memorising, the need to refer to the book is reduced. Thus, the Quran lives in that person memory. Furthermore, muslims read the Quran regularly from memory in their obligatory prayer that is 5 times a day. You see memorising it is just one part of the equation. Most importantly, it is being read regularly. Thus why a memorised Quran is never forgotten. In practising Islam, the chapters from the Quran are regularly used in our everyday life. For example, when we are going to sleep, we read the 3 Qul ( the 3 last chapter ) which Muhammad pbuh has taught his companions and thus us. When we moved into our new house, it is encouraged for us to read the 2nd chapter of the Quran (Al-baqarah). There are many more examples and the above are just some of them.

Why would Muhammad's companions have bothered to supplement the memorization by the nearly stenographic writings on whatever support they could find ?

Let me put forward and analogy, when you are studying for your exam, you memorises all the points and facts about the topic as much as you can. After a while you tend to forget some of it and you refer it back to the book to confirm your memory. Similarly, Muhammad pbuh companions write it down for their references in case that they forget sections of the ayah (sentence). Furthermore, it is the revelation from God, and thus it is a very important scripture. Shouldn't it be recorded in all ways possible to preserve it?

Another analogy, when a salesman have compose a perfect sale presentation for a meeting and have memorised it by hard and he knew that this is useful for him in the future. He will definitely save it or shall I say preserve it in a safe place just in case he forget. If we were to follow your conclusion, why should he bother to save the composition if he have already memorised it?

peace...

 

[mansio]

Light

Yes of course historians can make mistakes, and they can correct them too.
The Quran makes mistakes and it does not correct them.
That is the big difference and the reason why I prefer to rely on historians than the Quran.
As you are going to ask me for the Quran's mistakes I give you a short list:
- man created from mud (old pagan myth that passed in the Bible then in the Quran)
- Solomon has an army of men, jinns, birds and ants
- there are seven skies or heavens
- heart is the seat of thinking and intelligence
- sperm originates from the kidney area
- Jews consider Uzayr the Son of God as Christians do with Jesus
- heaven, earth and ants can talk (case of animism)
- shooting stars are used to pelt devils
- Noah and the Flood is another pagan myth
- the crossing and death of a pharaoh in the Red Sea is unknown of history
- birds throw stones to repel an invading army
- etc
All we know about the Quran and Muhammad are from traditions that were written down decades after Muhammad's death.
As it is the case with biographies, the later they were written and the more detailed they became.
As the Quranic texts from Muhammad's time were destroyed (nice case of sacrilege!) and as there were no voice recordings, we have no proofs of anything before Uthman's recension.

Bol777

Your "mathematical" structures in the Quran (I even wonder if all Muslims believe that) are another case of mimicking pseudo-Biblical science. So-called mathematical structures have been found in the Bible before and it all derives from the Jewish divination art of gematria.