more scientific proofs for the Quran
Nadir Ahmed
Let him beware! If he does not stop, We will take him by the forelock
(front of the head), a lying, sinful forelock! [Qur'aan 96 :15-16]
Why would the Author of the Quran asociate lying with the front of a
persons head:
The motivation and the foresight to plan and initiate movements occur
in the anterior portion of the frontal lobes, the prefontal area.
This is a region of the association cortex...
lets the the analysis on this scientifically correct statement:
A. Perhaps the author of the statement was a genious
this can not be a possiblity, the use of modern technology is
needed
B. A very good guess,luck
possible
C. Perhaps the author of the statement was a great scientist
this can not be a possiblity, the use of modern technology is
needed
D. Coincidence (ex: a poetic statement which just happened to match
up with science)
possible
E. Common sense (ex: rain causes grass to grow)
NO
F. The information already pre-existed in history
NO
G. A source greater than man was involved
possible
Denis Giron
> http://www.beconvinced.com/science/QURANCEREBRUM.htm
>
> Let him beware! If he does not stop, We will take him by the forelock
> (front of the head), a lying, sinful forelock! [Qur'aan 96 :15-16]
>
> Why would the Author of the Quran asociate lying with the front of a
> persons head:
>
> The motivation and the foresight to plan and initiate movements occur
> in the anterior portion of the frontal lobes, the prefontal area.
> This is a region of the association cortex...
This is an issue I'm not at all familiar with, nonetheless, here are
my thoughts...
First of all, Nadir himself conceded in his analysis (option D) that
coincidence is a possibility, and I agree. I would like to offer an
analogy. Many mothers have said to their children in American English
something along the lines of "get your lying behind inside the house"
or "I'm going to whup your lying behind." Now, if scientists later
discover that the rear end plays some role in lying (they have not,
but hypothetically, if they did), would this allow us to conclude that
the women who uttered the phrase "lying behind" were aware of the
physiological properties involved? Would the seemingly illogical idea
of a "lying behind" allow us to conclude that they were actually
making reference to a then unknown scientific fact? I believe the
answer is no on both accounts.
This is quite relevant to this aspect of the scientific-hermeneutic
approach to the Qur'an. Some may argue that we are talking about the
cerebrum, not the rear end, and further that science is in favor of
one and not the other. Of course, such objections miss the point of
the analogy. The point is that in a scenario where a seemingly
illogical statement can be correlated with a scientific fact, this
does not mean the one who uttered the relevant statement was aware of
the scientific aspects the statement has been correlated with.
Thus we see that if one were to use the above as proof that the Qur'an
is from God, they would be committing a fallacy by assuming the author
intended for the phrase to be a reference to the cerebrum. Of course
Nadir did not say such explicitly, and indeed admitted that natural
explanations are possible. If this is the case then I think Occam's
razor would have us lean in favor of the natural explanations rather
than the ontologically gluttonous supernatural explanation. Thus the
above does not serve as a sufficient proof that the Qur'an is the word
of God. Now of course, this does not mean the Qur'an is *NOT* the word
of God, nor is my intention to argue such in this thread.
-Denis Giron
http://freethoughtmecca.org
Mohd Anisul Karim
I hope you remember me. I would like to give some of my own opinions
to your argument. As I know, every saying and dictums have an origin
and their reasons... no matter how odd it maybe. Most of them arise
from the then common sense, and hence get it scientifically
inaccurate, if taken literally. They are actually meant for figurative
expressions. Your example of the 'lying behind' is a figurative
expression (ask any Anglo-American). The figurativism is quite evident
with the way the phrase itself is used. I suppose the origin of this
phrase was equivalent to what some parents say to their kids, "You're
grounded. Go to your room". We know that in a room there maybe seats
and stuff and you sit with your behind. Perhaps thats where it all
started from.
To compare it with the Quranic verse,
Let him beware! If he does not stop, We will take him by the
forelock
(front of the head), a lying, sinful forelock! [Qur'aan 96 :15-16]
There's a striking difference here. Why forelock? Was it a common
expression at the then Arabia as 'lying behind' was in England? Out of
all the meaningful expressions, why did an Arab use this phrase when
it made no sense to connect lying with the forebrain at that time?
This is enough proof to take the verse literally because it was
'meant' literally. Hope I made some sense (I mean literally!)
Regards,
Ahmad
Nadir Ahmed
occams razzor does not apply.
here is a another scientifically correct statement in the Quran:
http://www.emuslim.com/QuranandScience/Zoology.asp
And thy Lord taught the Bee To build its cells in hills, On trees, and
in (men's) habitations; Then to eat of all The produce (of the earth),
And find with skill the spacious Paths of its Lord 16:68-69
it is very interesting to note that it is the female bee which leaves
its home in search of food and is the soldier or worker, and in the
quran, the bee is indeed female.
Now, one may say that he got a 50/50% chance of getting it right, well perhaps,
but the author did get it right.
Unfortunetly, the admins wont allow me to post the algorythm, because it is to
repetitious.
Denis Giron
> The chances of this statement being a coincidence too high, therefore,
> occams razzor does not apply.
I think my application of Occam's razor was misunderstood here. My
point is simply that if we have a choice between a possible natural
explanation and a supernatural explanation, Occam's razor leans in
favor of the former. This does not mean the Qur'anic verse in question
is not of a divine origin. However, it does mean that the verse in
question does not force us to accept the verse as proof the text is
divine (regardless of whether the text is divine or not), or to put it
another way, it does not suffice as proof. Furthermore, I think my
analogy demonstrated that if a statement can be correlated with a
scientific fact, it does not mean that was the intended meaning,
hi-lighting certain methodological failings within this sort of
approach...
> here is a another scientifically correct statement in the Quran:
>
> http://www.emuslim.com/QuranandScience/Zoology.asp
>
> And thy Lord taught the Bee To build its cells in hills, On trees, and
> in (men's) habitations; Then to eat of all The produce (of the earth),
> And find with skill the spacious Paths of its Lord 16:68-69
>
> it is very interesting to note that it is the female bee which leaves
> its home in search of food and is the soldier or worker, and in the
> quran, the bee is indeed female.
>
> Now, one may say that he got a 50/50% chance of getting it right, well
> perhaps, but the author did get it right.
>
> Unfortunetly, the admins wont allow me to post the algorythm, because it is to
> repetitious.
Quick note on the last line: it is unfortunate that the algorythm was
rejected. Nonetheless, Nadir sent me the analysis of the verse above
that appeared in his excised algorythm, and there he rejected the
possibility that the author of the statement was a 'great scientist'
(which I would think is overstating it; rather we could say the
possibility that the author had sufficient scientific information at
his disposal to know that worker bees are female). Nadir also rejected
the possibility that it was common sense as well as the possibility
that the information already pre-existed in history.
Personally I think such analysis is woefully misinformed, and is what
fuels these sorts of appeals to personal incredulity. It is more than
reasonable to believe that the author of the Qur'an lived in a time
when the gender of communal insects was part of some sort of common
sense, and it is certainly false to claim that the information did not
exist prior to the writing of the Qur'an. Both points will be
demonstrated here.
First, also note that in Soorat an-Naml 27:18, when it has an ant
speaks, the verb for 'to say' is conjugated in the feminine (qaalat),
thus this too is a verse that could have been worked along similar
lines. However, compare this with the Hebrew of Proverbs 6:6. There
the Hebrew for ant (from the same proto-Semitic root as the Arabic) is
"n'malah," and it is feminine. And when the verse refers to the "ways"
of the ant, it reads "d'rakeiha," literally "her way." Thus even in
the Hebrew Bible worker ants are treated as female. Also note that one
of the words for bee in Hebrew is d'vorah, which is also feminine (the
NHL root from which the Arabic for bee arises is also found in Hebrew,
but in Hebrew it is only used for "swarm"). In both of these Semitic
languages ants and bees are treated as female, thus verbs connected
with actions being carried out by these animals must also be
conjugated in the feminine. Thus even if it is not common sense
because of the linguistics, it is nonetheless wholly sensible for the
word for ant or bee to be treated as feminine (thus implying a female
bee or ant) by a person who is *NOT* divinely inspired.
As for the knowledge that worker bees are female not pre-existing in
history, this is plainly false, as can be seen in the writings of
Aristotle. Referring to bees, he writes (a thousand years before the
Qur'an): "Others again assert that these insects [i.e. Bees] copulate,
and that drones are male and bees female." [see Jonathan Barnes (ed.),
"The Complete Works of Aristotle," Vol. 1, p. 872, 553a32-553b1]
Thus, in conclusion, there is nothing at all amazing about a seventh
century text (especially one written in a semitic language) referring
to bees or ants as female. Thus there is no reason to think that the
verse brought up by Nadir is any proof that the Qur'an is of a divine
origin (once again, this is not meant to imply that the Qu'ran is not
of a divine origin - I am only pointing out that this discussion has
not proven that it is).
-Denis Giron
http://freethoughtmecca.org
Denis Giron
> Hello Denis,
>
> I hope you remember me.
Of course I do... one does not mail multiple copies of a news article
to West Asia without remembering to whom he is sending it to. =p In
all seriousness, I have been meaning to return to our discussion on
the Bismika Allaahuma forum, and will get to it soon. Unfortunately,
my available time for the net has been greatly lessened, thus I pick
my posts sparingly. :(
> Why forelock? Was it a common
> expression at the then Arabia as 'lying behind' was in England? Out of
> all the meaningful expressions, why did an Arab use this phrase when
> it made no sense to connect lying with the forebrain at that time?
> This is enough proof to take the verse literally because it was
> 'meant' literally.
Okay, here I have a problem. First, it seems you have presupposed that
the phrase used in the Qur'anic verse was not in line with some
colloquial usage of the time (a supposition that, though subtle and
hidden, is actually essential to the citing of this verse as proof of
divine knowledge). Second, a presupposition to a lesser degree is that
the word being employed in the Qur'an was intended to mean forebrain
rather than forelock. As I understand it, the word can mean forelock
or forehead. It is not necessarily a reference to forehead, and it has
certainly not been demonstrated that it was intended to be a reference
to the brain!
Nadir Ahmed
for our
discussion, it is nothing more than a red herring.
lets take a look at Denis's freethought in action, Denis wrote:
> As for the knowledge that worker bees are female not pre-existing
> in history, this is plainly false, as can be seen in the writings
> of Aristotle. Referring to bees, he writes (a thousand years before
> the Qur'an): "Others again assert that these insects [i.e. Bees]
> copulate, and that drones are male and bees female." [see Jonathan
> Barnes (ed.), "The Complete Works of Aristotle," Vol. 1, p. 872, 553a32-553b1]
Denis's freethought actually MISQUOTED Aristotle. Aristotle did NOT
believe that the bees which do the actions mentioned in the quran are
female, because of his statement:
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/ross/ross221.html
"because nature does not provide females with weapons", i.e., sting"
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/ross/ross221.html
and we all know, that those bees which do the tasks mentioned in the
Quran sting. Aristotle actually didnt believe that bees were male or
female, this was his reasoning:
"His problem arises from a refusal to believe that bees are female
("because nature does not provide females with weapons", i.e., sting)
or that drones are females (because they do not care for the
offspring, which is, says Aristotle, the job of the female); the
corollary is that bees are not male (because they do take of the
young) and drones are not males (they don't have stings). Ergo,
neither is male, and neither is female; therefore no generation by
sexual congress"
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/ross/ross221.html
therefore, your objection is overruled, the Quran does infact present
new scientifically accurate information which was not known at its
time.
thanks,
Nadir
http://www.angelfire.com/ex/debates/
asimm...@yahoo.com
> Okay, here I have a problem. First, it seems you have presupposed that
> the phrase used in the Qur'anic verse was not in line with some
> colloquial usage of the time
It is an established verbal idiom of the Arab times. If one were to
suppose that this idom revealed a scientific fact, then one would
assume that all Arabs spoke divine words because they revealed unknown
scientific facts. The point of this verse is that the very character
would be dragged ON HIS FACE, the same face that tried to prevent the
other from bowing his head in prostration. Some people raise their
"heads high" in light of the truth because of their pride, while
others "fall on their faces" submitting.
It refers to the unalterbale Law of God in regards to His Messengers.
The enemies will be humbled and punished very severely.
Altway
"Nadir Ahmed" <nadirw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dd10d076.03082...@posting.google.com...
> your information on ants is very interesting, but absolutely useless
for our discussion, it is nothing more than a red herring.
Comment:-
Yes, these comments on the Quran by critics is wholly futile
because they have failed to understand the Quran.
As pointed out before, they make their own interpretations, then try to
demolish these, and then try to tell us that these opinions are the Quran.
To repeat, in the hope they will understand
though they will probably take any notice:-
Truth is more than Knowledge and knowledge is more
than science which is a particular way of looking at things
about a certain set of data by means of certain procedures and
within a certain conceptual system.
Nor is the verbal description the same thing as the experience
of that described, or the experience the same thing as the object.
When one tries to learn and understand a subject intelligently
then one does not impose procedures and conceptual systems
on it from another subject - e.g. one does not interpret a poem
as if it was a scirentific document, or as a political or commercial
enterprise, nor viceversa.
What should one think about, or do about, persons who
cannot understand these simple facts, and keep on
with their inanities?
Hamid S. Aziz
www.altway.freeuk.com
..
h.E.
"Nadir Ahmed" <nadirw...@hotmail.com> wrote
> therefore, your objection is overruled, the Quran does infact present new
scientifically accurate information which was not known at its time.
Are there any examples where the Quran refers to *any* animal as a male?
And by the way, the division of labor along lines of sex had been known for
hundreds of years even before Aristotle. Check out "Works and Days" by
Hasiod. Apparently, he understood the division of labor by sex, but thought
that it was the female who stayed home. Greek literature is full of
references to this phenomenon.
Nadir Ahmed
common idiom of the arabs, then show me where I can find this
statement used....
what you quoted, dragging them on their faces has NOTHING to do with
"take him by the forelock", you have committed the logical fallacy of
equivocation.
thanks,
nadir
www.angelfire.com/ex/debates/
asimm...@yahoo.com
> Asim, if you claim that the phrase "take him by the forelock" is a
> common idiom of the arabs, then show me where I can find this
> statement used....
>
1. The Quran says it was revealed in the language of the pre-Islamic
Arabs. Thus it spoke to a people that understood its message and were
capable of understanding it. Your assumption is grounded in the fact
that it is not an idiom, yet the evidence of the Quran points to it as
such.
2. I remember vaguely coming across this idiom in the Book entitled
Verbal Idioms in the Quran, by Mustansir Mir.
> what you quoted, dragging them on their faces has NOTHING to do with
> "take him by the forelock", you have committed the logical fallacy of
> equivocation.
>
>
How? The verse is directly speaking about the treatment that
particular person, i.e. Abu Jahl, will face. It is in the direct
context of his attempts to try and prevent that Holy One from bowing
and drawing near to His Lord in prostration.
"[This is nothing], Certainly not! [O Prophet!] if he desists not WE
SHALL DRAG HIM him by the forelock, a lying sinful forelock. Then let
him call his help-mates. We shall summon Our guards."
Here we have a situation of a man who boasts about his POSSY, his
back, that allows him to do whatever he pleases with Muhammad (S).
God Almighty condemns him very severly mocking this claim. It is like
saying "When God will drag Abu Jahl, let Abu Jahl summon his people to
help him." This concept of arrogance is used throughout the Quran,
and the allusions of the boasting of the numbers of the Qurayshi
leadership and their helpmates is very clearly illustrated. "Which
army will save you from the Most Merciful?" (Surah Mulk)
Further, the adjective of lying is directly in contrast to the
Righteuous person, Muhammad (S), who calls OTHERS TO THE TRUTH, the
right path. Thus, Abu Jahl has the qualities of not only arrogance,
but lying. While Muhamamd (S) possesses the quality of humility
before God and concern to spread the truth to others.
Now tell me, how can a baselss scientific interpretation even come
close to the literary aesthetics of the Quran.
> thanks,
> nadir
> www.angelfire.com/ex/debates/
Mohd Anisul Karim
> believ...@hotmail.com (Mohd Anisul Karim) wrote in message news:<7b81561a.03082...@posting.google.com>...
> > expression at the then Arabia as 'lying behind' was in England? Out of
> > all the meaningful expressions, why did an Arab use this phrase when
> > it made no sense to connect lying with the forebrain at that time?
> > This is enough proof to take the verse literally because it was
> > 'meant' literally.
>
> Okay, here I have a problem. First, it seems you have presupposed that
> the phrase used in the Qur'anic verse was not in line with some
> colloquial usage of the time (a supposition that, though subtle and
> hidden, is actually essential to the citing of this verse as proof of
> divine knowledge). Second, a presupposition to a lesser degree is that
> the word being employed in the Qur'an was intended to mean forebrain
> rather than forelock. As I understand it, the word can mean forelock
> or forehead. It is not necessarily a reference to forehead, and it has
> certainly not been demonstrated that it was intended to be a reference
> to the brain!
First off, I am highly naive when it comes to Arabic literature. But
if you can cite one or two texts, apart from the Quran, that uses the
phrase 'caught by the forelock' or ascribes immorality to the forelock
as a colloquial usage, then your argument of the phrase being
supposedly used colloquially would have buoyancy. Secondly, the Arabic
word used for forelock is an-nasiyah and is a reference to forehead
(Lisan Al-Arab, Vol. 15, p 327). The two adjectives used to describe
this in the Quran is 'lying' and 'sinful'. Keeping aside the Quran
for a moment, science has shown that forntal lobes of our brain is the
seat of all decisions, thoughts and sensation. This is the part where
immorality and infidelity is born and is manifested by our external
physical organs.
Now that the Quran makes reference to the forehead with regards to
immorality and science has found that the forebrain is the seat of
immorality, the inferrence is obvious: The Quran is making a reference
to the forebrain, otherwise the adjectives it has used to describe
this part of the brain wouldn't have resembled with the results of
modern research.
Even the early commentators like Ibn Katheer and Al-Qurtubi has
understood it to refer to the forehead LITERALLY and not in the
colloquial sense. Refer to Al-Qurtubi, Al-Jami LiAhkam Al-Quran, Vol.
20, p 126 and Ibn Katheer, Tafseer Al-Quran Al-Azeem, Vol. 4, p 529
for verification.
Regards,
Ahmad
asimm...@yahoo.com
> Unfortunetly, the admins wont allow me to post the algorythm, because it is to
> repetitious.
Probabilities do not generate conviction or faith. If one believes
that the probability of the universe coming together in such a
harmonious and beautiful manner is
(1/10000000000000000000000000000000) or gless, and still refuses to
believe, then it is obviously something else that is the problem.
Now to try and prove the miraculous nature of the Quran on a
probability of a much greater number, instead of simply recognizing
the gender usage in language, is, in my opinion, an absolute
disservice to the Quran.
asimm...@yahoo.com
> its home in search of food and is the soldier or worker, and in the
> quran, the bee is indeed female.
>
The real question:
Is the quran defining the gender of the bee, or is the gender usage
one of language? Notice that the Quran is not describing the nature
of the bee, but the universal principle of wahy that is taught to all
creatures by God Almighty.
Now if God has provided such creatures with the means to seek out
their livelihood, why on earth would God not provide man revelation,
when man is the apex of creation?
asimm...@yahoo.com
> for our
> discussion, it is nothing more than a red herring.
>
>
Why? It establishes the gender usage in language. To argue that
scientific fact was being revealed, one has to prove that the feminine
form was not used by the Arabs when speaking about the bee or any
other insect. As is clear from the usage of ant, it too is in the
feminine form, just as it is in Hebrew.
Now if feminine forms are used for insects, what makes this verse a
scientific fact? Further, what applicability does it have to the
direct addressee that heard the Quran?
It is an extremely valuable point that Denis has brought forth, and as
a Muslim, one should recognize it as such. The Quran is NOT a
textbook of science, and the claim of IJAZ is from a literary
perspective. Why do people insist on attributing to the Book of God
certain qualities that it does not claim for itself?
Denis Giron
> for our discussion, it is nothing more than a red herring.
Actually, the information I provided was with regard to a grammatical
nuance in Hebrew and Arabic, where ants and bees are often treated as
female. If the noun being employed is feminine (regardless of whether
that noun is a living thing or not), then verbs associated with that
noun will usually be conjugated in the feminine. This is relevant to
this discussion on the Qur'an and bees, since it helps to answer how a
text written in a Semitic language (like the Qur'an) might happen to
present bees as feminine.
Of course, if this is not enough for you, let me cite an example in a
portion of the Talmud (Baba Batra 18a) which reads: "charcheq d'vorakh
min chardla'ee she-ba'ot v'okhlot lighlooghei chardla'ee," or
"distance your bees from my mustard plants, for they come and gnaw on
[or consume] the flowers of my musterd plants."
Here, the word for bee is d'vorah, which is feminine. The verbs "to
come" and "to gnaw/consume" are conjugated in the feminine plural
(ba'ot and okhlot, respectively), thus this passage is stating that
the bees (plural) that come to flowers are female. Now, note a rule in
Hebrew grammar: mixed groups are treated as masculine (i.e. that if
you have a bunch of things, you only need one of those things to be
male/masculine in order to conjugate verbs associated with the cohort
in toto in the masculine plural), thus a group treated as feminine is
entirely feminine (not a single male is present). How interesting that
only female (worker) bees visit flowers to consume nectar and/or
collect pollin from them.
> lets take a look at Denis's freethought in action, Denis wrote:
> [...]
> Denis's freethought actually MISQUOTED Aristotle. Aristotle did NOT
> believe that the bees which do the actions mentioned in the quran are
> female,
I did not misquote Aristotle. On the contrary, I gave a direct quote.
The quote in itself tells us nothing about what Aristotle believed
regarding the issue of the gender of bees. The point was to
demonstrate that the knowledge of bees being female and drones male
existed more than a thousand years before the Qur'an was written. The
proof? Aristotle himself wrote: "Others again assert that these
insects [i.e. Bees] copulate, and that drones are male and bees
female." Is it Aristotle's position that bees are female and drones
male? No. He goes on to give (bizarre) arguments for why he rejects
such a belief. Nonetheless, Aristotle wrote, a thousand years before
the Qur'an, that "*OTHERS AGAIN ASSERT* that these insects [i.e. Bees]
copulate, and that drones are male and bees female." Thus people were
saying such even before Aristotle wrote that, and he was responding to
them. This is proof that there were people in Aristotle's time who
believed that "drones are male and bees female."
> therefore, your objection is overruled, the Quran does infact present
> new scientifically accurate information which was not known at its
> time.
With regard to the gender of bees, the Qur'an does not present any new
information. As has been demonstrated, it is often a nuance of semitic
languages that bees and ants are treated as feminine (hence the
Talmudic passage cited above), and regardless, people were arguing
that drones are male and bees are female more than a thousand years
before the Qur'an was written (as is seen in these very claims which
Aristotle sought to dispute).
The question I have is, coming in, roughly around what time did Nadir
think man discovered (or began to speculate regarding) the gender of
bees?
-Denis Giron
http://freethoughtmecca.org
thebit
> [T]he Quran does infact present
> new scientifically accurate information which was not known at its
> time.
I would have a few queries regarding this statement of yours.
1. You say that 'there was information in the Qur'an which was unknown
at its time'. Do you believe the Prophet (p) was party to the full
import of this knowledge?
2. The Prophet (p) was obviously engaged in preaching with the
Quraysh, and the wider community on the peninsula. Do you believe they
accepted his message, despite the fact that they were unable to
comprehend (significant?) portions of it, in any way, shape or form?
In other words, were the Companions, and the generations that followed
them, till today, reciting, transmitting, reading, studying, a text of
which they could never have hoped to have an understanding (because
only today can we fully appreciate these 'sceintific' facts)?
3. What might happen is there was a scientific revolution tommorrow
morning, and many of these 'scientific' facts are rejected, due to
this shift in the core of scientific thinking?
4. What if 'scientific evidence' is presented refuting the Qur'an?
Will you accept this 'evidence'? If not, why not?
Many thanks in advance.
Salaam `alaykum
Denis Giron
As am I...
> But if you can cite one or two texts, apart from the Quran, that uses the
> phrase 'caught by the forelock' or ascribes immorality to the forelock
> as a colloquial usage, then your argument of the phrase being
> supposedly used colloquially would have buoyancy.
Indeed it would. However, in light of my above-mentioned naivete
regarding seventh century Arabic colloquies, I am certainly not
positively asserting that this was simply a colloquial usage being
employed. The issue for me is that I am agnostic with regards to
whether or not this was part of pre-Qur'anic colloquial Arabic.
However, if one is going to positively assert that this verse is proof
that the Qur'an (or at least the verse by itself) is the word of God,
because no mere mortal could have uttered such a phrase, then it is
they who take upon themself the difficult burden of demonstrating that
the verse was not employing a colloquial usage. If one is going to
assert that no mere human could have utter these words, such an
assertion has to be demonstrated.
Furthermore, I think my original analogy of the "lying behind" still
stands because it proves a crucial point relevant to this mode of
exegesis: just because a statement uttered by person X can at a later
time be correlated with a scientific fact does not mean person X
actually intended for the statement to be a reference to this said
scientific fact.
Mohd Anisul Karim
> > But if you can cite one or two texts, apart from the Quran, that uses the
> > phrase 'caught by the forelock' or ascribes immorality to the forelock
> > as a colloquial usage, then your argument of the phrase being
> > supposedly used colloquially would have buoyancy.
>
> Indeed it would. However, in light of my above-mentioned naivete
> regarding seventh century Arabic colloquies, I am certainly not
> positively asserting that this was simply a colloquial usage being
> employed. The issue for me is that I am agnostic with regards to
> whether or not this was part of pre-Qur'anic colloquial Arabic.
> However, if one is going to positively assert that this verse is proof
> that the Qur'an (or at least the verse by itself) is the word of God,
> because no mere mortal could have uttered such a phrase, then it is
> they who take upon themself the difficult burden of demonstrating that
> the verse was not employing a colloquial usage. If one is going to
> assert that no mere human could have utter these words, such an
> assertion has to be demonstrated.
Denis, if the 'sinful and lying forelock' is not a colloquial
expression in pre-Islamic nor in the Arabia during the time of
Muhammad PBUH and has no colloquial sources (as your example of 'lying
behind' has), then it must have been used literally. I have cited many
works of prominent commentators who have taken this verse to mean
literally. And if it is taken literally and correlated with the modern
science, we not only have a harmony but a solid discovery that was
know 1400 years ago by an Arab nomad when technology like CAT scans
weren't even dreamt of! Yet this very technology has been responsible
for the advancement of discoveries related to brain without which, it
wouldn't have been possible in toto. Putting 2 and 2 together, we have
an example of something being known which wouldn't have been know, in
the first place, without the technology of the 20th century. This is
sufficient proof for divine inspiration, unless you are suggesting
some aliens of advanced civilization landed in Arabia and gave the
info to Muhammad as they supposedly gave info about the Sirius star to
dugon tribe of Africa!
> Furthermore, I think my original analogy of the "lying behind" still
> stands because it proves a crucial point relevant to this mode of
> exegesis: just because a statement uttered by person X can at a later
> time be correlated with a scientific fact does not mean person X
> actually intended for the statement to be a reference to this said
> scientific fact.
Again we have the intention issue. My question to you Denis would be:
Howcome sooo many verses have been harmonically correlated with the
21st century science if they weren't intended to, to begin with? I
mean you have immorality placed accurately in the context of the
forebrain, you have hubuk (weaving) placed amazingly in the context of
sky and you have three veils of darkness in the context of a
developing embryo - how could have so many terms and keywords have
been placed in their appropriate and accurate contexts WITHOUT THE
AUTHOR INTENDING TO? Contexts are like relationships and you are
relating something to something without a specific intention? How is
that possible? This argument of yours is loaded with such coincidental
instances that occam's razor will hardly have a second look at it
before shaving it off. Divine Inspiration is the ONLY rational
explanation to this... as far my imagination stretches, at least!
Regards,
Ahmad
Nadir Ahmed
> "*OTHERS AGAIN ASSERT* that these insects [i.e. Bees]
> copulate, and that drones are male and bees female."
this does not tell us anything, what do those "others"
believe about the role of the male and female, do they
beleive that females dont have stingers?
The Quran on the other hand makes it very clear as far as
the role of the female:
And thy Lord taught the Bee To build its cells in hills, On trees, and
in (men's) habitations; Then to eat of all The produce (of the earth),
And find with skill the spacious Paths of its Lord 16:68-69
> The question I have is, coming in, roughly around what time did Nadir
> think man discovered (or began to speculate regarding) the gender of
> bees?
who cares, weather bees have a gender is not at debate here, what IS being
debated here are what roles bees have.
HERE IS ANOTHER SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE:
30
2. The Romans have been defeated.
3. In the nearer land , and they, after their defeat, will be victorious.
the word for nearer land, adnal-ardh, can also mean lowest part of the land,
it is a fact that the Romans were defeated at Jeruselem and that is infact the
lowest point on earth.
http://www.miraclesofthequran.com/aboutfuture02.html
thanks,
Nadir Ahmed
www.angelfire.com/ex/debates
Denis Giron
> > "*OTHERS AGAIN ASSERT* that these insects [i.e. Bees]
> > copulate, and that drones are male and bees female."
>
> this does not tell us anything, what do those "others"
> believe about the role of the male and female, do they
> beleive that females dont have stingers?
> The Quran on the other hand makes it very clear as far as
> the role of the female:
>
> And thy Lord taught the Bee To build its cells in hills, On trees, and
> in (men's) habitations; Then to eat of all The produce (of the earth),
> And find with skill the spacious Paths of its Lord 16:68-69
Okay, now the above passage is the only one in the Qur'an where the
bee is mentioned. What is the scientific information that it is
conveying? That bees build their hives in hills, on trees, and the
homes of humans? That is perfectly observable. That bees consume
certain plant matter? That is perfectly observable (recall the
Talmudic passage I cited). There's nothing about stingers in this
passage either. The only thing that Nadir presented as being a
scientific fact was the issue of the bee being treated as female;
recall his initial post on this subject from August 21st, which has
been archived by google here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dd10d076.0308210655.62e5f846%40posting.google.com
Aristotle knew that bees were social animals, and would "submit to a
ruler" (see Book I of his "History of Animals" - interestingly, he did
not think bees breathed air, and also thought ants had no ruler, both
of which are incorrect obviously). Aristotle even could tell the
difference between bees and drones, as could people before him - the
only problem was that he refused to believe that bees and drones could
be either male or female, but people before him claimed that the bees
(i.e. the ones with the stingers, hence Aristotle's disbelief that
they could be female) were female, and the drones were male.
> > The question I have is, coming in, roughly around what time did Nadir
> > think man discovered (or began to speculate regarding) the gender of
> > bees?
>
> who cares, weather bees have a gender is not at debate here, what IS being
> debated here are what roles bees have.
Originally Nadir boiled it down to an issue of gender, and now no
longer finds that relevant to the debate. Thus I will ask another two
questions:
(1) What information does Nadir believe the Qur'an is revealing
regarding bees that no man knew at the time?
(2) When does Nadir think man became aware of this information?
> HERE IS ANOTHER SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE:
>
> 30
> 2. The Romans have been defeated.
>
> 3. In the nearer land , and they, after their defeat, will be victorious.
>
> the word for nearer land, adnal-ardh, can also mean lowest part of the land,
> it is a fact that the Romans were defeated at Jeruselem and that is infact
> the lowest point on earth.
This seems like an easy one. Every translation I have checked has
something along the lines of "near," thus it is reasonable to also
understand it in that sense. Thus we ask the question, is it possible
for a mere mortal to utter or write such a statement? Yes. Is it
possible for a person to refer to "nearest land" without knowing
whether that land is in fact the lowest point on earth? Yes. Thus it
is possible for a mere mortal to utter such, hence the verse is not in
itself evidence of divine guidance (that does not, of course, mean
that it is *NOT* the word of God).
Nadir Ahmed
> for a mere mortal to utter or write such a statement? Yes. Is it
> possible for a person to refer to "nearest land" without knowing
> whether that land is in fact the lowest point on earth? Yes.
But this sinerio which you are talking about did not happen, rather,
the author of the quran DID know that this was the lowest point on the
earth, that is why a word is used in the Quran which one of the
meaning
is also lowest point, how could a man 1400 years ago know this?
ok, let me submit to you the last 2 pieces of evidence which will be
covered
in our public debate on palatalk.com:
http://ebaumsworld.com/peeper.shtml
where does underground water come from?
science today tells us that rain water is the source of ground water:
or
www.agwt.org/info/pdfs/wheredoesitcomefrom.pdf
Here we see that the Quran confirms this 1400 years ago
23:18. And We sent down from the sky water (rain) in (due) measure,
and We gave it
lodging in the earth, and verily, We are Able to take it away.
how could a man living 1400 years ago know this information???
And finally, here is the last scientific evidence which will be
covered in our debate:
science tells us:
The darkness in deep seas and oceans is found around a depth of 200
metres and below. At this
depth, there is almost no light. Below a dept of 1000 metres there is
no light at all.
http://www.science4islam.com
Therefore, at the bottom of the sea, there is no light, this is what
the Quran says:
24:40. Or [the state of a disbeliever] is like the darkness in a vast
deep sea,
overwhelmed with a great wave topped by a great wave, topped by dark
clouds,
darkness, one above another, if a man stretches out his hand, he can
hardly see
it! And he for whom Allâh has not appointed light, for him there is no
light.
"there is no light", this is exactly what science tells us.
Denis Giron
> ...
In the Qur'an (Soorat ar-Room 30:3) there is reference to "adnaa
al-ardi," which all the translations I have checked translate as
roughly to the effect of "the near(est) land," and indeed that
translation is perfectly sensible. Nadir has noted that (a) it can
also be translated "the lowest land," and (b) it could very sensibly
be a reference to Jerusalem or the rough Dead Sea area. From there he
has concluded that the verse is stating that Jerusalem or the rough
Dead Sea area is the lowest point (below sea level) on earth (and
indeed it is). This Nadir cites as proof of scientific information
that no man at the time could have known, thus essentially proof that
the Qur'an is from God.
I noted that it is possible for a mere mortal to utter or write such a
statement based on the fact that it is possible for a person to refer
to "nearest land" without knowing whether that land is in fact the
lowest point on earth. The issue here (with regard to debate on
whether this is sufficient proof that the Qur'an is from God) is if a
mere mortal could make reference to "adnaa al-ardi." Since this can
mean "the near land" or "the land close by," one can very easily refer
to a land near by as "adnaa al-ardi" without any knowledge of its
position/height/altitude relative to sea level. In response, Nadir
wrote the following:
> But this sinerio which you are talking about did not happen, rather,
> the author of the quran DID know that this was the lowest point on the
> earth, that is why a word is used in the Quran which one of the
> meaning is also lowest point, how could a man 1400 years ago know this?
And we see the real problem here is that Nadir has assumed his own
conclusion regarding the Qur'an. He cannot simply assert that "the
author of the Qur'an did know that this was the lowest point on the
earth," rather he must actually demonstrate such if he is going to use
it as one of his premises or axioms. It is a fallacy to claim that
because a statement could possibly be a reference to something, the
statement is therefore in fact a reference to that thing. Nonetheless,
this is precisely the fallacy Nadir has committed.
Once again it must be stated that the point of this debate is to
determine if the scientific-hermeneutic approach is sufficient for
proving the Qur'an is the word of God. Because we are having this
debate, we cannot begin from the premise that the Qur'an is the word
of God; rather our initial premises must be agnostic with regard to
who the author of the Qur'an is. From there, if the Qur'an is to be
successfully proven to be authored by God via this method, all other
alleged possibilities will have been canceled or discredited.
So, we do not know who the author of the Qur'an may have been (it may
very well have been Allaah, regardless of whether the
scientific-hermeneutic approach proves it or not). When Nadir presents
a Qur'anic statement, the question has to be asked: "is it possible
for a mere mortal to write or utter such a statement without divine
guidance." If the answer is yes, then the statement itself does not
serve as proof that the Qur'an was authored by Allaah (regardless of
whether it was or not). In this instance, it is possible to refer to a
near by land as "adnaa al-ardi" without divine guidance or knowledge
of altitude relative to sea level, thus citing this verse does not
prove the Qur'an is from God.
So Nadir moved on with two more examples... First Nadir notes that
ground water comes from rain fall, and then cites the following
Qur'anic verse with a supplementary rhetorical question appended:
> 23:18. And We sent down from the sky water (rain) in (due) measure,
> and We gave it lodging in the earth, and verily, We are Able to
> take it away.
>
> how could a man living 1400 years ago know this information???
Obviously the point of Nadir's (apparently) rhetorical question is to
note that it is not possible for a man to have known the information
that is conveyed in the Qur'anic verse cited above. Of course, this
hidden assumption is wrong. First and foremost, since Nadir wishes to
employ this not-so-subtle appeal to personal incredulity, it has to be
asked when he thinks it is that man became aware that ground water can
be related to rain fall?
Right away one could note that the verse would convey information that
is common sense, especially for an Arab (because our oldest existing
manuscripts of the Qur'an date to late 7th or early 8th century
Arabia, it is fair to treat it as an Arabic text). In the Arabian
peninsula, wells used to be (and in some places still are) of immense
importance. Note that even to this day in certain parts of the Arab
peninsula (in areas inhabited by Bedouin), and certainly for many
centuries prior, drinking from another man's well without his
permission could potentially lead to violence and/or bloodshed.
Surely the men who guarded and survived off of these ultra-important
wells knew that if it does not rain, the well will eventually run dry
(or, if Allaah does not send down water, it will not lodge in the
earth). So the question has to be asked, what part of this verse in
the Qur'an does Nadir think no man could have known? It seems obvious
already that a mere mortal could have uttered this statement. Of
course, if Nadir is not convinced, let it be known that more than a
thousand years before the time traditionally given for the writing of
the Qur'an, people knew that rain supplied ground water supplies.
Consider the following statement from the writings of Aristotle
regarding rivers with underground sources:
"It is thought that the water is raised by the sun and descends in
rain and gathers below the earth and so flows from a great hollow, all
the rivers from one, or each from a different one. No water is
generated[.]"
[Aristotle, Meteorologica, Book I, 349b3-5, as per Johnathan Barnes,
"The Complete Works of Aristotle," (Princeton, 1985), Vol. I, p. 570]
Now Aristotle was stating what people in his time and before thought
(he actually went on to dispute the last part, as he strangely thought
that it was also possible for water to simply generate out of thin air
underground, thus new water is being generated). So we see that more
than a thousand years before the Qur'an was written (and even before
Aristotle wrote his book on meteorology), people were already stating
that underground sources of water were the result of rain water being
soaked into the earth. Aristotle himself, while disputing that no new
water is generated underground (Aristotle, it turns out, was the one
who was wrong), noted examples of underground resevoirs:
"That there exist such chasms and cavities in the earth we are taught
by the rivers that are swallowed up. They are found in many parts of
the earth: in the Peloponnesus, for instance, there are many such
rivers in Arcadia. The reason is that Arcadia is mountainous and there
are no channels from its valleys to the sea. So these places get full
of water, and this, having no outlet, under the pressure of the water
that is added above, finds a way out for itself underground. In Greece
this kind of thing happens on quite a small scale, but the lake at the
foot of the Caucasus, which the inhabitants of these parts call a sea,
is considerable. Many great rivers fall into it and it has no visible
outlet but issues below the earth off the land of the Coraxi about the
so-called 'deeps of Pontus'."
[Aristotle, Meteorologica, Book I, 350b35-351a10, as per Barnes, "The
Complete Works of Aristotle," Vol. I, p. 572]
Thus we see that this particular verse in the Qur'an is not citing any
information that no mere mortal could have known. Common sense told us
that people would have known about rain fall and underground sources
of water, and could easily have inferred their relationship. With the
quote from Aristotle, we know for a fact that people were aware of the
relationship between rain and ground water. Thus this passage cited by
Nadir is not in itself proof that the Qur'an is the word of God. Of
course, this does mean the Qur'an is not the word of God; I have not
given any reason to conclude such, nor is it my intention to attempt
to do such in this thread.
> And finally, here is the last scientific evidence which will be
> covered in our debate:
>
> science tells us:
>
> The darkness in deep seas and oceans is found around a depth of 200
> metres and below. At this depth, there is almost no light. Below a
> dept of 1000 metres there is no light at all.
> http://www.science4islam.com
>
> Therefore, at the bottom of the sea, there is no light, this is what
> the Quran says:
>
> 24:40. Or [the state of a disbeliever] is like the darkness in a vast
> deep sea, overwhelmed with a great wave topped by a great wave, topped
> by dark clouds, darkness, one above another, if a man stretches out his
> hand, he can hardly see it! And he for whom Allâh has not appointed light,
> for him there is no light.
>
> "there is no light", this is exactly what science tells us.
Again, the same question comes up: when is it that Nadir thinks that
man became aware that water distorts light, and that seas are darker
the deeper you go? This is important, as Nadir is assuming that no man
at the time knew what is being conveyed in the Qur'an, and if he is
assuming such, then surely he bases this assumption on knowledge of
when man became aware of this.
I find this again to be an issue of common sense. When I was four
years old I already knew that the deeper the water was at Coney Island
Brighton Beach, the less visible my feet were. Water is translucent,
it distorts images, and the deeper the water, the less visibility you
have. This is common sense. Homer in the Iliad made passing reference
to a dark sea near Samos, and I believe other ancient sources have as
well. For instance, I found a copy of Aristotle's Sense and Sensibilia
online:
http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/g/w/gwr5/PHIL011/sense1.html
Though he's talking about the senses, he takes it for granted that
water is translucent ("the visual organ proper is composed of water,
yet vision appertains to it not because it is so composed, but because
it is translucent- a property common alike to water and to air"). It
is precisely because water is translucent (i.e. it transmits light but
causes some diffusion and thus can prevent perception) that the deeper
you go, the less light and visibility there is in large bodies of
water. He even compared the appearance of objects under water to
objects in a haze ("an effect like that sometimes produced by painters
overlaying a less vivid upon a more vivid colour, as when they desire
to represent an object appearing under water or enveloped in a haze").
Of course, it is not amazing that Aristotle knew this, nor is it
amazing that the Qur'an speaks of it being dark under large amounts of
water. That's common sense.
So, in this post I have examined three passages, one each from Soorat
al-Moominoon, Soorat an-Noor, and Soorat ar-Room. None of these
passages convey information that no mere mortal could have known. It
is possible for a mere mortal to have uttered or written these
statements, thus the passages are not in themselves proof of a divine
origin. Of course, in no way does this mean the Qur'an is not the word
of God - it simply means that Nadir has yet to demonstrate that it is.
If I were Muslim, my position regarding this issue would be exactly
the same.
Denis Giron
> Denis, if the 'sinful and lying forelock' is not a colloquial
> expression in pre-Islamic nor in the Arabia during the time of
> Muhammad PBUH and has no colloquial sources (as your example of 'lying
> behind' has), then it must have been used literally.
It could literally have meant the forelock as well. Nonetheless, I
agree at least in part that if it was not a colloquial phrase, then
other avenues must be explored. Of course, it has yet to be proven
that this wasn't some sort of colloquial or figurative idiom, and that
is something that needs to be proven if we're going to assume this
verse is in itself evidence of divine guidance. Furthermore, with
regard to the 'lying behind' analogy, even if only one person (rather
than thousands) had said it, this does not allow us to conclude that
the one person did not intend it figuratively.
> I have cited many
> works of prominent commentators who have taken this verse to mean
> literally.
I checked Ibn Kathir, and apparently he thought it was a literal
reference to the forehead (not the brain), and even spoke of the
scorching/blackening of the forehead (the one who blocks prayer gets
his own mark of prostration on his forehead in a painful way perhaps).
None of your sources presented it as a reference to the brain.
> Again we have the intention issue. My question to you Denis would be:
> Howcome sooo many verses have been harmonically correlated with the
> 21st century science if they weren't intended to, to begin with?
That's an easy one to answer: because the text of the Qur'an is
beloved by literally billions of people, and there is a portion of
that group that is trying to find scientific miracles. From our
discussions on the Bismika Allaahuma forum you have seen me correlate
a number of passages from the Hebrew Bible and Talmud with science.
Imagine if I was not alone, and dozens more people were also looking
to make such correlations? Semitic languages loan themselves nicely to
these sorts of endeavors, but this still does not change the fact that
just because a statement can, at a later time, be correlated with a
scientific belief, that the statement's author intended for it to be a
reference to that scientific fact. It does not matter if you commit
this fallacy with one verse, or with a thousand, if you do it with the
Qur'an or the book of Job, it is still a fallacy.
> I mean you have immorality placed accurately in the context of the
> forebrain,
No, you have something that may be the forehead or forelock being
called lying and sinful, and it has recently been interpreted by
proponents of the scientific hermeneutic approach as a reference to
the "forebrain".
> you have hubuk (weaving) placed amazingly in the context of
> sky
And you could have the same with the phrase "hubuk an-nujoom," as we
have discussed.
> and you have three veils of darkness in the context of a
> developing embryo
And the "three veils" mentioned in the Qur'an are arbitrarily
correlated with drastically different things, showing how wide open
the reference is. Also, the way proponents of the
scientific-hermeneutic approach treat the Qur'anic "three veils of
darkness" would work just as well if it said "four veils" or even
"five veils" (as well as "two veils"), exhibiting the problematic
nature of this sort of exegesis.
> how could have so many terms and keywords have
> been placed in their appropriate and accurate contexts WITHOUT THE
> AUTHOR INTENDING TO?
Easy, at a later time people correlated these passages with the
relevant scientific beliefs. There is no limit on how many post-hoc
correlations can be done - you can correlate one statement with
something not originally intended, or do it with thousands of
statements, and this is particularly easy with Semitic languages. For
example, let us use the "veils of darkness" of the Qur'an. Those who
lean on the exegesis attributed to Keith Moore think it is a reference
to the amniochorion, the uterine wall, and the abdomninal wall. Rashad
Khalifa thought it was a reference to the trimesters. You have said
you think it could be a reference to both. Suppose it originally was
intended to only mean the trimesters, just the same you could
correlate it with the amniochorionic membrane, the uterine wall, and
the abdomninal wall, even if the author did not have those things in
mind! The same is true in the opposite direction (i.e. the three walls
were meant, not trimesters, yet trimesters can still be correlated
in). Thus we see that the ability to correlate a passage with
something does not tell us if that was what was intended, and this
fact does not change with the number of correlations made.
no...@yahoo.com
wrote:
>So, in this post I have examined three passages, one each from Soorat
>al-Moominoon, Soorat an-Noor, and Soorat ar-Room. None of these
>passages convey information that no mere mortal could have known. It
>is possible for a mere mortal to have uttered or written these
>statements, thus the passages are not in themselves proof of a divine
>origin. Of course, in no way does this mean the Qur'an is not the word
>of God - it simply means that Nadir has yet to demonstrate that it is.
>If I were Muslim, my position regarding this issue would be exactly
>the same.
>
If one were to objectively look at this, it would sound logical that
the mentioned passages of the Holy Qur'an may not be taken by a
critical mind as sufficient evidence of a divine origin, then again,
nothing can satisfy a critical mind! - so let us work in the
scientific language of probabilities - what is the probability of the
Prophet of Islam having known these scientific facts and putting them
down so eloquently?
Also, I would like Denis to give me the name of one book that has been
extant for over 1400 years without any extrapolation, abrogation (**)
or change in its contents. This in itself is at least a mystery if not
evidense of divine origin of the Holy Qur'an.
I am pleased to note that Denis has been very objective in his
comments - this always helps colliquy.
(**) Not including Nasikh and Mansukh - this needs another discussion!
Noor
Denis Giron
> If one were to objectively look at this, it would sound logical that
> the mentioned passages of the Holy Qur'an may not be taken by a
> critical mind as sufficient evidence of a divine origin, then again,
> nothing can satisfy a critical mind!
With all due respect, I feel as though this sort of response has the
potential to poison the well, with the last part about nothing
satisfying a critical mind. Nonetheless, the above does essentially
capture my argument: the verses in themselves do not suffice as
evidence that the Qur'an is the word of God (this does not mean there
is no evidence; just that these specific verses do not serve as
evidence in and of themselves).
> so let us work in the scientific language of probabilities - what is the
> probability of the Prophet of Islam having known these scientific facts
> and putting them down so eloquently?
This question seems a bit loaded in my opinion. When did we agree that
there were scientific facts that the author of these Qur'anic passages
was aware of? The author of these passages said something, and Nadir
claimed that the passages were themselves evidence that the author was
aware of scientific information that no man could have known. I have
not seen it. Two of the passages can be chalked up to common sense,
one of those two certainly was known by people centuries before the
Qur'an was written, and the third passage does not necessarily have to
be taken has proof that the author intended it to be a reference to
what Nadir claimed it was a reference to (altitude)...
> Also, I would like Denis to give me the name of one book that has been
> extant for over 1400 years without any extrapolation, abrogation (**)
> or change in its contents.
I'm not sure what you mean by "extrapolation" and "abrogation". I'm
assuming with the latter you mean it to be similar to your third
effect mentioned: change. So, while I'm not 100% sure what you mean
here, if I am correct, you are asking me to cite a text that has not
undergone any significant changes over the last 1400 years. I'm no
manuscript scholar (I don't even know for a fact that the Qur'an has
undergone no changes over the last 1400 years, though from the little
I do know it does seem remarkably well preserved, and I personally
know of no significant changes over the last 1300-1400 years), but I
would, however, tentatively cite the scroll of Isaiah. In the Qumran
version(s) of Isaiah (i.e. the 2000+ year old scrolls found among the
Dead Sea Scrolls) there are only a few differences from our present
day modern Hebrew text, the only significant ones covered by me last
March in this post:
http://forum.bismikaallahuma.org/viewtopic.php?p=4715#4715
So in the last two thousand years only a few spelling and scribal
differences (which can change and have changed words) have arisen in
the scroll of Isaiah. While I may be wrong, I believe that without the
Qumran scrolls, our oldest copies of Isaiah would date to some time
around the seventh century (I have to look this up to be sure
thought), and the differences in the older Qumrani version are not
present in these seventh century texts (which would mean that the
changes in Isaiah have taken place during the first six or seven
centuries of the common era). Thus it is possible that the scroll of
Isaiah has undergone no significant changes over the last 1400 years,
and this may be true of other texts as well, but of course this is
tentative.
Of course, ultimately this is irrelevant, as preservation does not
imply divine origin. This is true regardless of whether the text being
preserved is the Qur'an or not. I would ask why anyone would think
that preservation points to divine origin.