Logic of Allah
Mete Gulenoglu
"..If this book wasnt from Allah, you would surely find errors in it"
now if it said "If there was any errors in this book, then it would
make it certain that this book isnt from Allah" then it would be fine
because all books of Allah are error-free. but the opposite is not
true
which is:
"all error-free books are from Allah"
and this is what this verse 4:82 assumes
-----------------
in verse 3:183 it says:
"You (jews) demand miracles in order to accept muhamamd's prophethood.
O muhamamd say them: WHY DID YOU KILL THE PROPHETS BEFORE ME WHICH
CAME WITH MIRACLES TO YOU IF YOU ARE TRUTHFUL??"
now in this verse Allah/Muhammad is asking a very clever question.
first he assumes:
---> the jews in muhamamd times are immortal jews, they have been
alive for thousands of years. They are the ones that killed the
prophets [same logic exists in 3:181 where allah says he will punish
those jews in muhamamd time for worshiping the calf in moses time too.
because those jews are immortal]
and then Allah here is falling into an AD HOMINEM. jews have a demand
and muhamamd doesnt take this into consider, but instead he attacks
them in person and says "why did you kill the prophets before you
then??" instead giving them a miracle, or trying to refute their claim
that a prophet must be recopgnized by only miracles. he could say that
it is not necessary for a prophet to come with miracles. or any such
logical refutation to their claim. but not with an 'ad hominem'
this is a clear example of ad hominem.
M.S.M. Saifullah
> In verse 4:82 you read this:
>
> "..If this book wasnt from Allah, you would surely find errors in it"
>
> now if it said "If there was any errors in this book, then it would
> make it certain that this book isnt from Allah" then it would be fine
>
> because all books of Allah are error-free. but the opposite is not
> true
> which is:
> "all error-free books are from Allah"
> and this is what this verse 4:82 assumes
Since the poster is dealing with the "logic" in the Qur'an, let us discuss
the logical issues surrounding the verse 4:82.
"Do they not consider the Qur'an (with care)? Had it been from other than
Allah, they would surely have found therein much discrepancy."
There are two methods of examining whether the Qur'an is what it claims to
be.
The first is a very cumbersome process, which involves reading the whole
book, verifying the information present in it and then passing a verdict.
The second method is much simpler. This would involve not to look to the
meanings of the words, but to treat them as abstract logical terms. To
make this clear let us consider the difference between
Tokyo is a large city
and
Tokyo has 5 letters
In one phrase, we are referring to the city and in the other to the name
'Tokyo'. Let us now apply this logic to the Qur'an.
"Do they not consider the Qur'an (with care)? Had it been from other than
Allah, they would surely have found therein ikhtilafan kathiran."
when translated we can write it as:
"Do they not consider the Qur'an (with care)? Had it been from other than
Allah, they would surely have found therein many ikhtilafan."
Now, what a clever logician would do is to simply treat ikhtilafan as a
word and not consider its meaning and start counting number of its
occurrences in the Qur'an. This would simply enable him to check whether
the author of the Qur'an understands the difference between use and
mention of the word. The clever logician would find that the word
ikhtilafan occurs only once in the Qur'an, i.e., in the above
verse.Therefore, had the Qur'an been from any other than Allah, the
logician would surely have found therein many ikhtilafan.
[see the entry in Muhammad Fu'ad Abd al-Baqi's, Al-Mu'ahjam al-Mufahris li
al-Fadh al-Qur'an al-Karim, 1997, Dar al-Fikr: Beirut, p. 305.
This is not just an isolated case. In fact, whenever there is mention of
simile or dissimilitude in the Qur'an the number of occurances happen
accordingly. I have verified quite a few of them myself.
> in verse 3:183 it says:
>
> "You (jews) demand miracles in order to accept muhamamd's prophethood.
> O muhamamd say them: WHY DID YOU KILL THE PROPHETS BEFORE ME WHICH
> CAME WITH MIRACLES TO YOU IF YOU ARE TRUTHFUL??"
The actual verse says:
"They (also) said: "Allah took our promise not to believe in an messenger
unless He showed us a sacrifice consumed by Fire (From heaven)." Say:
"There came to you messengers before me, with clear Signs and even with
what ye ask for: why then did ye slay them, if ye speak the truth?"
Well, the meaning of the verse is self-evident. If the Jews deny the
Messengership of Muhammad, SAW, then why did they deny the Messengership
of the ones before him, e.g., Jesus, AS and why did they kill the
Messengers who came with clear evidences? If the Jews were truthful they
would have answered it.
<rest of it deleted for the sake of brevity>
Wassalam
Saifullah
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/
Denis Giron
> "Do they not consider the Qur'an (with care)? Had it been from other than
> Allah, they would surely have found therein many ikhtilafan."
>
> Now, what a clever logician would do is to simply treat ikhtilafan as a
> word and not consider its meaning and start counting number of its
> occurrences in the Qur'an. This would simply enable him to check whether
> the author of the Qur'an understands the difference between use and
> mention of the word. The clever logician would find that the word
> ikhtilafan occurs only once in the Qur'an, i.e., in the above
> logician would surely have found therein many ikhtilafan.
I found this to be very humorous. A while back I read this bit of
trivia (I'm not sure if Dr. Saifullah considers it an argument) on the
Islamic Awareness site, and I didn't pick up anything from it.
Regardless, Mete Gulenoglu brought up an interesting point, and
reading the thread caused me to see a whole lot more. No matter how
you treat the verse, there still seems to be a wee bit of a propblem
with the logic of Allah (which is what the original poster was getting
at). Let me try and make it more clear... Mete Gulenoglu was
essentially pointing out the following:
The basic point of the verse is:
"If it is not from Allah, it will have many errors."
So, if pull a little modus pollens, we would get the following:
~A --> E
~E
---------
~~A
...or...
If it is not from Allah, it will have many errors.
It does not have many errors.
--------------------------------------------------
It is not not from Allah (i.e. it *IS* from Allah)
The problem is the faulty logic, which implies that if the book is
error free it is from God. Surely that's fallacious.
Dr. Saifullah pasted the above witty bit of trivia above from his
site. The problem is, the argument is still the same:
If it is not from Allah, it will have many ikhtilaafan.
It does not have many ikhtilaafan.
--------------------------------------------------
It is not not from Allah (i.e. it *IS* from Allah)
So, while Dr. Saifullah's response is humorous, it did not address Mr.
Gulenoglu's point. Does the fact that the word "ikhtilaafan" appear
zero times in my Dr. Seuss book make it divine? Does the fact that
"ikhtilaafan" appears a few times in this post prove that it is not
divine? Or does the rule apply *ONLY* to that book (special pleading
for the Qur'an)? Not a knock-down refutation, but darned funny to be
sure.
> If the Jews deny the Messengership of Muhammad, SAW, then why did
> they deny the Messengership of the ones before him, e.g., Jesus,
> AS and why did they kill the Messengers who came with clear evidences?
Dr. Saifullah seems to have missed the point. Let me make it clear
with an analogy. Suppose Dr. Saifullah was born in India. Now, there
have been a few incidents where Indians (militant Hindus actually, but
we'll ignore that point for a second) have burned down a church and
even killed some of the Christians who were there. Now, imagine I say
to Saifullah: "if you believe Jesus was a great prophet, why did you
burn down churches and kill his followers?"
There's a number of errors and presuppositions there. First of all,
just because Dr. Saifullah was born in India does not mean he has to
answer for the actions of other Indians. Second, notice how I slipped
in the belief that Christians are Jesus' followers (rather than
Muslims)?
Want another example? Okay, if Dr. Saifullah follows God, how come he
doesn't accept Baha'ullaah as a prophet? Notice how, rather than try
and work within or even acknowledge Dr. Saifullah's religious
paradigm, I just presuppose that Baha'ullah was a prophet without any
evidence. This is similar to asking a Jew why he denied Jesus'
prophethood, as if there was evidence that (A) Jesus performed
miracles, or if he fit the Jewish equivalent of prophet, et cetera.
Readers can go to ARI and see literally hundreds of these sorts of
fallacious lines of reasoning, like "if Islam is a religion of peace,
why do Muslims crash planes into buildings?" and many other ridiculous
questions. It is from an faulty thinking process that such things
come.
So, assuming the verse in question truly records a possible discussion
or discussions between Muhammad and certain Jews, I would like to ask
the following questions:
(1) How old were these Jews?
(2) What evidence did Muhammad bring of Jesus' miracles?
Just my thoughts...
-Denis Giron
http://www.geocities.com/freethoughtmecca/home.htm
tamer
in my opinion mr:gulensoy is a christian man from turkey and he is
trying to refute quran.it is perfectly normal and i think it gives
oppurtunities to some muslims to share their knowladge with people
who likes to learn.i am not a scholor i am a reader and i will give my
opinion about this subject.
before we think about chapter nisa verse 82 we should remember that
koran does claim to be from GOD. then it challanges to critizers that
if this book is not from GOD you can find many contradictions in it.
quran does 'NOT' at first claims that this book is error-free and
then does not says therefore from GOD.quran 'DOES SAYS' that this
book is from GOD therefore it is error-free.
in my opinion we understand the meaning of verse 82 should if we take
the source in its whole context
dear mr:giron i do read your messages in this groub and
muslim-christian diolugue.i realise that you talk about logic a lot
and i like people who talk about logic a lot. but sometimes i feel
like when mr:saifullah posts a massege in this group you do forget all
the logics just to go against his arguements.
i would like to hear your resbonse to this issue if its is posible;
lets assume that there is a person stands on your street and holds
book in his hands claims that this book says it is from GOD you do
see this person everyday when you go to work and coming from work, you
realise some people pass this man totaly ignores him,but he never
bother people who ignores him. then one day you do see one man deside
to stop this guy and challange to his claims.aproches to claimer and
he asks following questions:
1)how do you know this book from GOD?
2)what makes you think that there is a posibblety that this book from
GOD?
and man with the book answer firsth question;
because book says so
second question ; because there is no error in it as a matter of fact
book itself points out this.
now mister giron what do you think challanger should do? since he is
the one who challanges against the claimer.do you think that he should
simply says i dont believe that ? or do you think that he should say
this book is lying?
or since he is the challanger and serious about his challange then
shouldnt he try to proof his point against the claimer?if so what
would be the best undisputed proof against the book which is claims to
be from GOD? as you know
we cant dispute any claim we challange front of any logical law
simple saying by this claimer is liying or this is a false claim.as
you know we need a proof.
well in my opinion challanger may argue that there is many people in
other streets that have books and they claim same things.but then dont
you think that
logical aproches to this claim of challenger would be such as man with
the book on your street is the first claimer and we should disprove
his claim first.because if the first claimer is false then we can
check others but if the first claimer .
dear mister giron i hope you forgive my english level since english is
my second language . this subject is very deep subject and there can
be long diolugues about this subject but i can only make this subject
simple as posible as above example.i like the learn from you on what
base challanger can refutes this claim?
as a quick note i think in my knowladge quran is the only book in the
world claim to be from GOD and only book claims error free.
good days
M.S.M. Saifullah
> The basic point of the verse is:
>
> "If it is not from Allah, it will have many errors."
Now verse says:
"Do they not consider the Qur'an (with care)? Had it been from other than
Allah, they would surely have found therein much discrepancy." [4:82]
So, it talks about a specific book called Qur'an, not a telephone
directory. Before you write a long-winding argument which does not make
any sense, please read the verse to understand what it is saying.
<useless material snipped>
Wassalam
Saifullah
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/
Altway
news:a3fmt3$4k2$1...@samba.rahul.net...
> > "Do they not consider the Qur'an (with care)? Had it been from other
than
Allah, they would surely have found therein many ikhtilafan."
> The basic point of the verse is:
> "If it is not from Allah, it will have many errors."
So, if pull a little modus pollens, we would get the following:
~A --> E
~E
---------
~~A
...or...
> If it is not from Allah, it will have many errors.
> It does not have many errors.
--------------------------------------------------
It is not not from Allah (i.e. it *IS* from Allah)
> The problem is the faulty logic, which implies that if the book is
error free it is from God. Surely that's fallacious.
Comment:-
The problem arises from applying logic rather than intelligence.
The verse is perhaps better translated as:-
"Do they not meditate on the Quran? If it were from other than Allah they
would find in it many a discrepancy (inconsistencies, incongruities,
contradictions)." 4:82
It asks us first "do they not meditate on the Quran".
Then it tells us about the difference between those who do and those who do
not meditate.
There is an assumption that the person meditating believes in Allah.
The person who does not believe in Allah or does not meditate on the book
will find discrepencies just as the above critic is doing.
It has been pointed out before that the Quran is not written in a Linear
manner.
It is more like nature where each element has connection with the others and
is understood with respect to them.
--
Hamid S. Aziz
Understanding Islam
www.altway.freeuk.com
.
Mete Gulenoglu
but i think it was censored or it was lost or something.
to the moderator: i must say this moderating thing is terrible, what i
post appears here the next day. i wish it was not moderated, it is
making it slow and frustrating.
anyway in my post, i expressed my shock and amazement in how msm
saifullah person told completely irrelevant things.
msm saifullah: do you really believe all what you typed here is
actually an answer to my questions???? sorry but i think you have been
reading quran for enough long time, your reasoning resembled allah's
thanks to denis giron for clarifying my points, but i dont think we
can get anymore responses than that denis, you know, there are a
number of fixed responses for questions that have certain phrases in
them, so no matter what you ask, you will get a fixed answer, you just
need to have a good obedient muslim brain, and pretend that that what
you get is answering the question and even more showing you some more
miracles of the quran.
Mete Gulenoglu
can you please explain WHY would have we found much discrepancy in the
quran if it wasnt from allah?
Mete Gulenoglu
i am an atheist from turkey who was raised a muslim.
it seems, just like msm saifullah, you cant get a grasp of what
problem i am pointing at quran either
it is a fallacy to say:
"this book is from god BECAUSE it has no errors"
i know you have a hard time understanding that but i will try to help
you get it.
now read the verse 4:82 and then ask WHY? and try to answer the
question
"if that book wasnt from allah they would have surely found much
discrepancy in it"
now ask WHY WOULD HAVE WE FOUND MANY DISCREPANCY IN IT IF IT WASNT
>FROM ALLAH?
you have to answer something like: "because NO HUMAN CAN WRITE AN
ERROR-FREE BOOK"
now is it true? is it impossible to write an error-free book?
M.S.M. Saifullah
> can you please explain WHY would have we found much discrepancy in the
> quran if it wasnt from allah?
Whare is your list of discrepancy in the Qur'an? We need to have a look
at it before we can say anything?
And please be articulate in what you write.
Wassalam
Saifullah
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/
M.S.M. Saifullah
> it is a fallacy to say:
>
> "this book is from god BECAUSE it has no errors"
The book, the Qur'an asks you to contemplate. It does not say that since
this book is from God because it has no errors in it. Now please show us
the results of your contemplation at least before you start making lots of
noise here.
Wassalam
Saifullah
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/
asimm...@yahoo.com
> It is not not from Allah (i.e. it *IS* from Allah)
>
Ikhtilaafan encompasses a wide variety of meanings. The word includes
the notions of contrast, discrepancy, incosistencies in the use of
language, divergence, contradictions and the like.
The point being made is that the Quran is free of all this. Human
language, thought, and the like are evidence to evolution and change.
Prophets are no exception to this rule either when it comes to their
own opinions, because they may change their opinions in light of
particular circumstances. The Quran, besides its being a book without
any of the above problems, was revealed over a twenty three year
period according to various circumstances, and still enjoys perfect
consistency. This is what is actually, it seems, the implication of
these statements.
Syed
> msm saifullah:
>
> can you please explain WHY would have we found much discrepancy in the
> quran if it wasnt from allah?
Such a religious scripture, if from a man at that time, would have
contained many mistakes, scientific especially.
Eg, when Quran says the universe is expanding, if it was not from
allah such a statement would not be in the book or it would be
erroneous.
Syed
Hi, im not a scholar, not even very clever, but ill try to answer you,
please forgive me if I end up confusing you.
On your first point, you are missing the point allah is making. those
earlier messangers with their miracles were chances being given to the
jews by allah, yet they blew it, and what would be different now?
allah knows what will happen if muhammad shows them physical miracles
that the Jews are asking for, the same things that their ancestors
did. You are arguing from the point of view that allah does not know
the outcome, but if you assume allah knows the ouctome, the verse is
plain to understand, and you can see the argument allah is taking for
rejecting those Jews asking for miracles - the outcome will be the
same as those Jews at the time of Jesus etc
Also, when asking the Jews, allah is asking those with the same
beliefs as the Jews who rejected Jesus et all. You are from the
mistaken viewpoint that just because the Jew being asked is not the
same Jew who rejected or killed these messangers, that they dont have
the same beliefs.They do, which is why Jews today still reject Jesus.
Look at it from allah's viewpoint - you re a Jew, you have the same
religious beliefes and viewpoints as those who Jews who rejected
Jesus, so the same question can still apply. Its like asking the
religion indirectly - Judaism why do you reject Jesus and Allah's
other messangers? Why did you slay them? And why do you ask of the
same things for Muhammad when you have already ignored the very thing
you asked for?
Altway
news:a3m1t0$cfi$1...@samba.rahul.net...
> I am an atheist from turkey who was raised a muslim.
Comment:-
I can see why you abandoned Islam.
You were brought up in the Western Education and
interpret everything from that point of view.
You did not bother to understand the Quran.
But this lack makes you arrogant.
> It is a fallacy to say:
> "This book is from god BECAUSE it has no errors"
I know you have a hard time understanding that but I will try to help
you get it.
Now read the verse 4:82 and then ask WHY? and try to answer the question.
"If that book wasnt from allah they would have surely found much
discrepancy in it"
Now ask WHY WOULD HAVE WE FOUND MANY DISCREPANCY IN IT IF IT WASNT
>FROM ALLAH?
You have to answer something like: "Because NO HUMAN CAN WRITE AN
ERROR-FREE BOOK"
Now is it true? Is it impossible to write an error-free book?
Comment:-
What you say is "logically" correct, but the Quran is speaking about
realities
not verbal propositions. The words in the Quran are "surely they... "
If you do as the Quran instructs and meditate on the Quran you will come to
know that no human being has all knowledge and that their interpretations
depend
on their limitations, desires and fantasies etc.
J0sh26
reasonings and the Qur'an's reasoning and dictates. Remember in the Bible in
Matt. 16 where the Lord rebuked Peter? Peter didn't think it was "logical" and
reasonable for "the Christ" to suffer and die. To him (and likely the others)
such talk was contrary to everything the Messiah stood for, but what did Christ
reply to Peter? "Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an OFFENSE unto me: for
thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of MEN"
(William Tyndale calls it "worldly things"). Peter is told his "rationale" is
humanistic, Satanic, and just plain WRONG. There have been many times in which
I deserved just as stern a rebuke by saying things like "If God" this or "God
would surely" that or "What reason could God possibly have to..." and having
not one promise from Scripture that He would or wouldn't do any of them. You
said, "If God desired...why didn't He..." Can't you see it brother? We can't
read God's mind or understand His methods unless He reveals them. The Bible is
filled with God doing things in "illogical," unconventional ways. He simply
will not fit in man's logic-tight reasonings, yours or mine or the Qur'an's.
thebit
> i am an atheist from turkey who was raised a muslim.
And? This means nothing to anyone but yourself. Would you be impressed by
someone who was an atheist but became a Muslim?
> it is a fallacy to say:
>
> "this book is from god BECAUSE it has no errors"
When one looks at the life of the Prophet (p) and looks at the
circumstances he found himself in, this argument does indeed become
compelling: did he really sit down and sift through all his words and
"decide" what was and wasn't Qur'an and remove anything contradictory?
> now is it true? is it impossible to write an error-free book?
No. It isn't impossible. But it sure would be for someone who found
himself under constant threat, constant harrassment, someone whose every
word was scrutinised: both in earnest by his followers and by his
enemies, in case he made a mistake.
Mete Gulenoglu
do you even understand what i am talking about? you have sent here 4
or 5 posts but NONE of them are addressing the problem i am pointing
at!
i cant see much people can even see the problem either in this thread,
heck there are even people who would say stuff like "problem arises
here because you apply logic instead intelligence"!!!!
all replies i got are NULL except SYED's:
"Such a religious scripture, if from a man at that time, would have
contained many mistakes..."
this is the correct answer guys, only SYED could understand what i was
talking about. THIS ANSWER TRIES TO DEFEND THE FALLACIOUS ASSUMPTION
OF "ALL ERROR-FREE BOOKS ARE FROM ALLAH". if you read the tafsir you
will see them giving this same respond with SYED's (they can see the
problem in 4:82 too). other answers are not even answering my question
(i could never guess it could be that hard for people to understand
such a simple thing)
anyway i want to respond to SYED:
WHY WOULD YOU ASSUME THAT??
PROVE THAT SUCH A RELIGIOUS SCRIPTURE FROM A MAN AT THAT TIME WOULD
HAVE CONTAIN MISTAKES. AND QURAN CONTAINS AN ERROR IN 4:82 UNTIL YOU
PROVE THAT.
and you know what, it is NEVER logically impossible for quran to be
written by men and still have no errors. you know thats going to be a
big problem for you because of verse 4:82 right? (with that brilliance
of yours i have observed so far, of course you realise it i am SURE)
THEBIT:
i didnt tell you that i am an atheist and coming from muslim
background to impress you or to argue that islam is false becaue of
this, i told that because someone else in the thread claimed i am a
turkish christian and i am trying to refute quran, and i had to
correct it, it is true i am turkish and i am trying to refute the
quran but i never was a christian. (being a christian wouldnt make my
argument about 4:82 null anyway, you guys need to learn about the
fallacy of ad hominem)
Imran Razi
> i cant see much people can even see the problem either in this thread,
> heck there are even people who would say stuff like "problem arises
> here because you apply logic instead intelligence"!!!!
First of all, your English is atrocious. There's not much point in
communicate with someone who can't express himself clearly.
Second, your interpretation of religious text is distorted to the point
of being childish. (That's when I stopped bothering with your posts).
Third, your "logic" is poor. There are several people here whose
abilities in logic and logical thinking far surpass your own.
If you have some point to make it, make it. But think clearly (and
with some depth, for everyone's sake) and express yourself clearly.
You have a long way to go. Most of the people here know what they're
talking about. The reason you haven't received many replies is because
you've written so far does not merit a response. It is you who need to
prove yourself worthy of our time.
Imran Razi
munyas
> MSM SAIFULLAH:
> do you even understand what i am talking about? you have sent here 4
> or 5 posts but NONE of them are addressing the problem i am pointing
> at!
> i cant see much people can even see the problem either in this thread,
> heck there are even people who would say stuff like "problem arises
> here because you apply logic instead intelligence"!!!!
>
its question wasn't understood.
Br. Saifullah must have understood the question; he has answered it
rather well in other threads.
Clinton-style parsing cannot always salvage a lost argument. The
seeker of truth should understand the claim in 4:82.
Br. Saifullah is right. Read the entire book before passing verdict.
The Qur'an contains the narration about man, (21:10) a very best of
the narrative (39:23); it explains matters of faith (43:52): that the
soul is held in pledge against the deed it earns (6:70). It is an
insight for mankind, and the guidance and grace for any nation that
affirms the faith. (45:20)
How many books (or scriptures) make such claims? Others do not merit a
mention.
The Quran has repeatedly explained the matters of reality (17:41), its
statement sifts right from wrong (87:13).and it thoroughly explains
all sorts of examples (17:89). Injunctions for the benefit of man are
provided, and then fully explained. (11:1)
That further shrinks the list of books (and scriptures) that anyone
can dare to hold up against the Qur'an.
The verses of the Qur'an are distinct and detailed (41:3), and its
oft-repeated contents are coherent and consistent (39:23). Its
promises and threats are balanced and sharply defined (20:113).
It is in that context that the Qur'an majestically confronts the
seeker of truth:
Why don't they ponder over the Qur'an? Had it been from a source other
than Allah, they would have found a great deal of conflict (and
contradiction) in it (4:82).
If that isn't enough, there is no other book that has affected so many
millions, in so many diverse cultures, and for so many centuries, in
such a manner that:
They are awestruck by it. (39:23)
They fall prostrate on the ground, weeping. (19:58)
Their flesh shudders with fright, (39:23)
It fills them with humbleness. (17:109)
They fall down on their faces, choked up and sobbing. (17:109)
Their hearts and souls become mellow with the remembrance of Allah.
(39:23)
There are many who read the Qur'an and yet remain indifferent. Then,
there are those who have never read it, but still consider it their
right to utter rancorous remarks about it.
"Actually, they rejected that, (the Qur'an), which they failed to
comprehend. Its full significance has yet not dawned upon them."
Al-Qur'an 10:39
"We have repeatedly explained matters in this Qur'an, so they may come
to their senses. But it has only intensified their aversion (for the
truth)."
Al-Qur'an 17:41
Zubair
Mete Gulenoglu
zub...@mediaone.net (munyas) wrote in message news:<a3tl10$s3p$1...@samba.rahul.net>...
> The Qur'an contains the narration about man, (21:10) a very best of
> the narrative (39:23); it explains matters of faith (43:52): that the
> soul is held in pledge against the deed it earns (6:70). It is an
> insight for mankind, and the guidance and grace for any nation that
> affirms the faith. (45:20)
> How many books (or scriptures) make such claims? Others do not merit a
> mention.
anyone can write a book claiming all that
the point is: logically it is not impossible to write a book which has
such claims yet has no contradiction or anything.
imagine writing a computer program that will randomly put down an
arabic letter one after another for X times where X is the total
number of the letters in the Quran, and it is logically possible that
the output will be identical to Quran. So you see, whatever Quran
claims or does, it is NOT IMPOSSIBLE for Quran to be error-free yet be
>from "other than Allah".
the claim of 4:82 is clear:
"If Quran was from other than Allah, it surely would have
contradictions"
the contradiction in Quran is:
Quran claims that it is logically impossible for Quran to have been
written with no contradictions if it was other than Allah, BUT IT IS
IN FACT POSSIBLE.
IMRAN RAZI:
you can't go anywhere with personal insults. and you cant understand
my point anyway. you said "this is why i stopped responding to your
posts" well i dont remember seeing your name before. whoever you are I
dont care whether you answer to my posts or not. my point is clear.
Mr Mahdi
>the contradiction in Quran is:
>
>Quran claims that it is logically impossible for Quran to have been
>written with no contradictions if it was other than Allah, BUT IT IS
>IN FACT POSSIBLE.
When asked to prove that the Quran has "contradictions," this guy couldn't
provide the evidence. In other words, this atheist made a claim that he
refuses to try to even prove. The he claims that Muslim must prove him wrong
in order to be right. That's a strange way of debating.
I am not sure this guy know what contradiction means. The Quran makes an
intellectual challenge: prove the Quran to be wrong and you have refuted Islam.
No one -- despite centuries of trying -- has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt
the Quran has contradictions and mistakes.
Now the naivete of this atheist thinking that he can come here on SRI -- where
they are some good Muslim debaters -- run the Muslims over with his arguments
is funny to me. For your informatiom, my forte is debating with atheists.
Atheism by far is the easiest belief to refute for the simple fact that atheism
is not based on evidence but on rebellion. Atheists are usually disgruntled
people who are rebelling against religion by denying the entity that
religionists worship as a deity: God. They think the best way to attack and
rebel against religion is to deny its deity. And all the arguments atheists
use like scientific and logical arguments are nothing but attempts to justify
their rebellion from religion. Atheists cannot prove that nothing can equal
something or that the universe came into being by mere chance. Atheists rather
spend their time attacking religion because they think religion and God are one
in the same. They seem to forget that religion cannot prove or refute the
existence of God but God can be proven through evidence such as creation or the
miraculous nature of the Quran.
It is ironic that this guy uses the handle "Logical proof" when he has no proof
that atheism is the truth or that God doesn't exist. And yet, as the the
typical recently converted atheist, he comes here with arrogance, trying to
bully the Muslims as if we were simple-minded and naive lost people who cannot
take any intellectual challenge and he were the enlightened thinker trying to
free the poor Muslims from superstitions and ignorance.
The enemies of Islam have tried since day one to "refute" Islam and have been
unsuccessful. I do not why every johnny-come-lately think they can "refute"
Islam with old, rehashed arguments that have been refuted centuries ago.
Mahdi Muhammad
munyas
> > How many books (or scriptures) make such claims? Others do not merit a
> > mention.
>
> anyone can write a book claiming all that
>
> the point is: logically it is not impossible to write a book which has
> such claims yet has no contradiction or anything.
>
> imagine writing a computer program that will randomly put down an
> arabic letter one after another for X times where X is the total
> number of the letters in the Quran, and it is logically possible that
> the output will be identical to Quran.
Logic yields graciously that the Qur'an is error free.
Then, logic shifts gears from 'possible' to 'not impossible'.
And then, logic breaks down.
A computer program can produce an error free Qur'an, it claims.
A monkey can produce 'Moby Dick' if it works on the keyboard long
enough.
A bovine species can undergo several mutations in quick succession,
and acquire the ability to resist gravity.
Hypothetically not impossible!
Reminds one of the popular English adage: when pigs fly!
As for Moby Dick, a monkey did write that classic.
Wasn't Mark Twain a cousin of the monkeys twice removed on the family
tree of Darwin?
Is anything ever impossible?
Zubair
Imran Razi
<logica...@yahoo.com> wrote:
you said "this is why i stopped responding to your
> posts" well i dont remember seeing your name before.
When rhetorically discoursing in English, let alone Arabic, and further
let alone formal languages, you need to be precise and accurate.
Please learn to read and quote accurately. What I said was:
"That's when I stopped bothering with your posts"
There's a big difference, if one understands English. Like your
previous alleged "argument", you start with language problems, and move
on to careless and distorted interpretations. If you are going to come
here (a) with a major attitude; and (b) insult Islam and Muslims, I
suggest you have all your ducks in a row.
Imran Razi
thebit
> Quran claims that it is logically impossible for Quran to have been
> written with no contradictions if it was other than Allah, BUT IT IS
> IN FACT POSSIBLE.
Does the Qur'an say it is "logically" impossible? Stop putting words into the verses.
No. If you look at the life of the Prophet (p), then the authorship of the Qur'an being
attributed to him, under the conditions he found himself in, becomes dubious. It can
then be asserted that any man who found himself constantly under the threat of death;
then found himself as a head of state, with some elements within his own community less
then supportive and with hostile elements from others (i.e. some of the Jewish tribes);
together with the fact that his words were listened to in earnest by his followers and
by his enemies, I think we can safely assume that it would then be near impossible for
no contradictions to appear in a book he had "written".
But this is what you get when people dont look to what the words refer, and instead
argue over the words themselves.
Altway
> > The Qur'an contains the narration about man, (21:10) a very best of
the narrative (39:23); it explains matters of faith (43:52): that the
soul is held in pledge against the deed it earns (6:70). It is an
insight for mankind, and the guidance and grace for any nation that
affirms the faith. (45:20)
How many books (or scriptures) make such claims? Others do not merit a
mention.
> anyone can write a book claiming all that
> the point is: logically it is not impossible to write a book which has
such claims yet has no contradiction or anything.
imagine writing a computer program that will randomly put down an
arabic letter one after another for X times where X is the total
number of the letters in the Quran, and it is logically possible that
the output will be identical to Quran. So you see, whatever Quran
claims or does, it is NOT IMPOSSIBLE for Quran to be error-free yet be
>from "other than Allah".
> the claim of 4:82 is clear:
> "If Quran was from other than Allah, it surely would have contradictions"
> the contradiction in Quran is:
> Quran claims that it is logically impossible for Quran to have been
written with no contradictions if it was other than Allah, BUT IT IS
IN FACT POSSIBLE.
Comment:-
This is known as "rationalization".
If you do not understand or want to understand something then
you must find some kind of excuse. And of course you can do this
best by taking it out of context.
But you know very well the Quran is not a book on logic.
The verse tells you to meditate on the Quran, not to make silly excuses
under the guise of logic. The Quran, moreover, tells us about people
who do this kind of thing and has a name for them.
What would you say about someone who reads poetry,
or a book of instructions about some engineering techniques,
or about organizing and management, or a description of the anatomy of
plants
and he starts to analyze it by the use of logical propositions.
or he looks at a philosophical treatize and mistakes it for
poetry or instructions, etc.
Here we have inappropriate methods of understanding
and the criticisms and conclusions based on this will be dismissed as absurd
and irrelevant
Cannot you understand that perfection is attributed to God
even when it manifests through something which is itself limited!
Read the verse in context and meditate:-
4:81. They say, "Obedience!" but when they sally forth from you, a company
of them ponder (meditate, plan, brood) by night over something other than
that which thou hast said; but Allah writes down that over which they
ponder. Turn then from them and rely on Allah, for Allah suffices as
Trustee.
4:82. Do they not meditate on the Quran? If it were from other than Allah
they would find in it many a discrepancy (inconsistencies, contradictions).
4:83. And when there comes to them a matter of security or fear they
broadcast it; but if they had referred it to the Messenger and to those in
authority amongst them, then those of them who can think would know it; but
were it not for Allah's grace upon you and His mercy you would have followed
Satan, save a few.
And read also Quran chapter 2 verses 1 to 20.
Though I doubt you will understand them either.
Denis Giron
interesting discussion. Mr. Gulenoglu's comments are greatly
appreciated! I'd like to comment on a couple of points that I have
seen in the thread. I'll try to make this quick. I also (at a later
time) promise to take part in the Trinity thread (especially since
Imran Aijaz, Abdur-Rahman Lomax and Imran Razi offered some excellent
points) and I promise to get back into the Midrash thread (since Dr.
Saifullah seems to have really ripped my arguments apart in that one).
However, for the time being, I want to comment just on this thread.
I'll be responding to comments by Dr. Saifullah, Mahdi, Tamer, et
cetera. Since I just mentioned him, I'll be starting with Dr.
Saifullah's post. His post has been archived at:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=a3j8j2%24pcs%241%40samba.rahul.net
The exchange (up to this point) between Dr. Saifullah and myself went
as follows:
> > The basic point of the verse is:
> >
> > "If it is not from Allah, it will have many errors."
>
> Now verse says:
>
> "Do they not consider the Qur'an (with care)? Had it
> been from other than Allah, they would surely have found
> therein much discrepancy." [4:82]
>
> So, it talks about a specific book called Qur'an, not a
> telephone directory. Before you write a long-winding
> argument which does not make any sense, please read the
> verse to understand what it is saying.
Well, I must say that to dismiss my attempt to expand Mr. Gulenoglu's
argument with only the above exchange is quite surprising. With all
due respect, I actually think that such a dismissive response only
avoids the issue.
So, I should rephrase my argument as follows:
"If the Qur'an was from other than Allah, it would have many
'ikhtilaafan'."
Now, as it goes, you don't find many "ikhtilaafan," so we pull a
little modus tollens (dare I say "denying the consequent"?) and the
logic follows that it is not from other than Allah (i.e. it is from
Allah).
Okay, so now, if I have the argument correct, maybe Dr. Saifullah
could explain why a lack of errors, or a lack of numerous instances of
the word "ikhtilaafan" implies that the Qur'an is divine? Is it
possible that if (in some perverse parallel universe) that a man could
write a text in Arabic that is both free of errors and contains the
word "ikhtilaafan" only once? I think it is surely possible, thus this
does not imply divine authorship by any stretch, even for the Qur'an.
Dr. Saifullah has not given us any reason why we should accept the
special pleading he has offered on behalf of the Qur'an (to
distinguish it from a phone directory).
[====== Next Comment ======]
Now, I'd like to shift into Mr. Mahdi's post to Mr. Gulenoglu, which
has been archived here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=a3vk6n%24aob%241%40samba.rahul.net
Mr. Mahdi opened with the following:
> When asked to prove that the Quran has "contradictions," this
> guy couldn't provide the evidence. In other words, this atheist
> made a claim that he refuses to try to even prove. The he claims
> that Muslim must prove him wrong in order to be right. That's
> a strange way of debating.
First off, while Mr. Gulenoglu did use the word "contradiction" in his
most recent post, and I'm not sure that what he has cited counts as a
contradiction, I don't think this is really the issue. What is at hand
here is the fact that Mr. Gulenoglu has pointed out that the
implication in the aya in question is that a lack of errors (or only a
single instance of the word "ikhtilaafan") somehow iplies that it is
>from a divine source. There is no reason to assume such, and thus far
the defenders of the text have failed to present any good reason why
we should accept any special pleading for this text alone. A lack of
errors does not imply divine authorship, thus poor logic is employed
in the writing of the verse.
Furthermore, Mahdi claimed that Mr. Gulenoglu is making a claim and
then demanding others prove him wrong. Mahdi even says that this is a
"strange way of debating." The reality is that Mr. Gulenoglu's only
error is calling what might not be a contradiction "a contradiction."
Other than that, his argument has been quite clear, and Mahdi has not
really touched on the real issue of the thread.
In fact, Mahdi is merely putting forth a standard line of his. In this
exchange with Mr. Gulenoglu, Mr. Mahdi essentially ignores his points,
then demands evidence of a whole nother issue. He also did this in his
exchanges with Imran Aijaz, and in that thread he also employed his
line about the other side using a "strange way of debating". Imran
Aijaz' posts were actually quite the celebrated topic in a bahai
newsgroup where Mahdi gives dawa (in a somewhat aggressive and
unsuccessful manner). When Mahdi saw that the Bahais were expressing
their enjoyment derived from the Swami parody, Mahdi claimed he had
actually won the debate and that the other side brought no evidence
(yet demanded he bring evidence). The whole thing blew up on him here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=bdfe7cc1.0201261745.26fa4774%40posting.google.com
The point of this red herring regarding Mahdi's old exchange with
Imran Aijaz is to note the fact that Mahdi has a tendency to ignore
the focus of the thread, yet make claims abotu the other side shifting
the burden of proof in a "strange way of debating." This
often-repeated line does not gain strength with every hit of the
submit button.
> I am not sure this guy know what contradiction means.
Maybe he doesn't. I don't think the verse counts as a real
contradiction. However, it does emply some erroneous logic, and makes
a mistake that is common for men not well versed in logic to make.
> The Quran makes an intellectual challenge: prove the Quran to be
> wrong and you have refuted Islam.
Sure, that's an interesting challenge, but the issue here is how it is
worded. The structure of the sentence puts forth a statement that
basically says that a lack of errors logically implies a divine
origin, which is blatantly wrong.
> No one -- despite centuries of trying -- has proven beyond a
> shadow of a doubt the Quran has contradictions and mistakes.
As will be shown in an analogy below, it is impossible to really prove
any religious text has an error. I know Christians who are very
familiar with all the alleged contradictions in the Bible (they saw
them in seminary), yet are sincerely convinced there is another
answer. See below in the analogy for Tamer.
> For your informatiom, my forte is debating with atheists.
With all due respect, I find this hard to believe. Would you like to
cite some examples?
> It is ironic that this guy uses the handle "Logical proof"
> when he has no proof that atheism is the truth or that God
> doesn't exist.
It is ironic that Mahdi can't see the fallacious reasoning in such a
comment. Imagine if Mr. Gulenoglu was from a sect of Hinduism that
worshipped slugs, and the sects text said that "slugs are the fastest
animals in the universe." Would the fact that Mr. Gulenoglue had faith
in such silly things be at all relevant to the thread? Do Mr.
Gulenoglu's beliefs somehow validate the Qur'an? Let's try and stay
within the focus of the thread.
> I do not why every johnny-come-lately think they can "refute"
> Islam with old, rehashed arguments that have been refuted
> centuries ago.
Mr. Gulenoglu's argument is pretty straight forward. If it has been
refuted, please point us in the direction of a post, article, or book
that does so. If you can't do so, the above is not relevant to Mr.
Gulenoglu's argument.
[====== Next Comment ======]
With that established, I'd now like to respond to a post written by
Tamer that was very interesting. His post was archived here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=a3j7kr%24p80%241%40samba.rahul.net
Tamer wrote:
> in my opinion mr:gulensoy is a christian man from
> turkey and he is trying to refute quran.
Well, I actually know nothing about Mr. Gulenoglu, so I can't say if
he is a Christian or not (and if he is, what kind of Christian). As we
all know by now, he states quite firmly that he is an Atheist (and I
see no reason to doubt him). Furthermore, I don't know anything about
his motives for posting to SRI (while I don't rule out a missionary
conspiracy, I generally don't believe it). Regardless, my ignorance
(and the possible ignorance of others) regarding Mr. Gulenoglu's
character and motives shouldn't really keep us from considering his
arguments. I'm sure you agree.
> it is perfectly normal and i think it gives
> oppurtunities to some muslims to share their
> knowladge with people who likes to learn.
I agree. I think these sorts of discussions allow us to air out our
thoughts in public, with the conjectures and refutations avaliable for
all who are interested. It allows us all to test the mettle of our
respective beliefs.
> i am not a scholor i am a reader and i will
> give my opinion about this subject.
Well, I'm definitely not a scholar either, and I doubt there are that
many scholars on this board. So we're all on roughly equal footing,
and I am anxious to read your thoughts on the issue.
> we should remember that koran does claim to be
> from GOD. then it challanges to critizers that
> if this book is not from GOD you can find many
> contradictions in it. quran does 'NOT' at first
> claims that this book is error-free and
> then does not says therefore from GOD.
But you see, the first point you brought up is the issue that the
claim of the Qur'an is that if it is not from Allah, you can find many
errors in it. As I showed in my first post, the insinuation is that if
it is in fact free of errors, this somehow lends corroborating support
to its claim of being a divine text. However, the reality is that
there seems to be nothing about a lack of errors that implies divine
authorship. Could it not be conceivable that if it was a fabrication,
that the human authors could have managed to write a book without
errors? I think it is possible.
> quran 'DOES SAYS' that this book is from GOD
> therefore it is error-free.
This is a different issue. That would run as follows:
Books authored by God are free from error.
If the Qur'an was authored by God, it is free of error.
I think that works out perfectly. Also, the challenge would be clear
in that sense, as if we start from such premises, we have one possible
way of at least falsifying the claim of divinity. Such an argument
would be:
If the Qur'an is from God, it is free of error.
The Qur'an is not free of error.
=====================================
The Qur'an is not from God.
That would be modus tollens, and the logic follows. However, the
challenge does not demonstrate divinity. It cannot be treated as
"divine until proven not divine" by neutral parties (if there is such
a thing as neutral). That would come off as:
If the Qur'an is from God, it is free of error.
The Qur'an is free of error.
====================================
The Qur'an is from God.
That's a fallacy known as affirming the consequent. Fortunately, the
Qur'an does not commit that fallacy; rather the argument is that if it
is not from God you would find errors (with the hidden premise and
conclusion being that there are no errors, thus it is from Allah). So
it is a valid argument on the part of the Qur'an, but Mr. Gulenoglu
and I were taking issue with the fact that the argument holds that a
lack of error implies divinity, when there is no reason to assume
such. We are taking issue with the premise.
> sometimes i feel like when mr:saifullah posts
> a massege in this group you do forget all
> the logics just to go against his arguements.
Well, while I am not very conscious of it, I think an objective look
at my writings (particularly my website) would lead a person to assume
that I have an anti-Monotheist agenda (i.e. I'm motivated by a desire
to attack Judaism, Christianity, and Islam). With that in mind, it
opens the door to the very real possibility that I am in fact what Dr.
Saifullah calls an "obstinate donkey." Still, I would really like to
see examples of where I am abandoning all logic and arguing for the
sake of argument.
Now, Tamer gave a very interesting analogy, and I would like to
present it in its entirety:
[------ Begin Analogy ------]
lets assume that there is a person stands on your street and holds
book in his hands claims that this book says it is from GOD you do
see this person everyday when you go to work and coming from work,
you realise some people pass this man totaly ignores him,but he never
bother people who ignores him. then one day you do see one man deside
to stop this guy and challange to his claims.aproches to claimer and
he asks following questions: 1)how do you know this book from GOD?
2)what makes you think that there is a posibblety that this book from
GOD? and man with the book answer firsth question; because book says
so second question ; because there is no error in it as a matter of
fact book itself points out this.
[------ End Analogy ------]
>From there, Tamer asks the following question:
> now mister giron what do you think challanger
> should do? since he is the one who challanges
> against the claimer.do you think that he should
> simply says i dont believe that ?
Well, first and foremost, I hope you don't think my objections are
instances of a needless splitting of hairs. Nevertheless, if the man
with the book is making a claim, he is the positive claimant, thus
there is no burden of proof on the one who asks for some sort of
corroboration of the claims. Furthermore, I personally, if I were the
"challenger," would dispute the idea that such responses suffice as
proof. The fact that the text says so is irrelevant in my opinion (and
hints at a circular argument). As for the lack of errors, both Mr.
Gulenoglu and I heavily dispute the idea that a lack of errors points
to divine authorship in any way. I think Mr. Gulenoglu isstill waiting
for Dr. Saifullah to answer regarding what it is is about a lack of
errors that implies a divien origin. I'll have more to say in my
responses below.
> or do you think that he should say
> this book is lying?
No. Definitely not. If that would happen, we get the follow exchange:
Believer: "This book is from God, it says so!"
Disbeliever: "That book is lying."
When the believer spoke, he was making a claim, thus he was the
positive claimant, and up to that point his evidence was very weak.
However, once the disbeliever comes out and says the book is lying,
the burden of proof has suddenly shifted onto his shoulders.
> in my opinion challanger may argue that there
> is many people in other streets that have books
> and they claim same things.but then dont
> you think that logical aproches to this claim
> of challenger would be such as man with
> the book on your street is the first claimer and
> we should disprove his claim first.because if the
> first claimer is false then we can check others
Well, I still think there are a number of problems here. First, let's
suppose your man with the book is holding a book titled "book of
Allah." On the next corner (as you mentioned, there are many corners
with many men and their books) is a man with "Book of Zeus," and on
the corner after that there is the man promoting "Book of Vishnu." So,
while you said check this one first, I actually do that, but check the
other two as well. Here are the first three verses of each book:
Book of Allah:
Chapter I, "The Wind."
(1) This is the word of God.
(2) One plus one equals two.
(3) Rain comes from clouds.
Book of Zeus:
Chapter I, "The Window."
(1) This is the word of God.
(2) One plus one equals one.
(3) Rain comes from the other town.
Book of Vishnu:
Chapter I, "Wind Burn."
(1) This is the word of God.
(2) One plus one is more than two.
(3) Rain comes from the clear stone in the north.
Well, I, the man who disbelieves in all three books, sees that the
Book of Zeus and the Book of Vishnu are not free of errors, while the
Book of Allah is free of errors. Yet still, I am not convinced that
the Book of Allah is from God. Why do I still disbelieve despite the
fact that it is free of error? Well, because it is possible for a
non-divine source to write something free from error (there's proof of
this in the fact that I wrote those three verses, and they are free of
error).
Furthermore, take note of this: imagine that while we have yet to come
to any proof either way for the Book of Allah, we all agree that books
attributed to Zeus and Vishnu haev errors. So the man with the Book of
Allah (BOA) walks home after a hard day of missionary work, and sees
the man with the Book of Zeus (BOZ). The conversation goes like this:
[------ Begin Scenario ------]
BOA: "Hey man, we all know your book ain't from God, so give up
already."
BOZ: "What? How do you know this is not written by Zeus, the King of
the Gods?"
BOA: "Easy, your book is loaded with errors! You open to the first
page and right away the errors are obvious."
BOZ: "There are no errors in my book. I challenge you to show me a
single error!"
BOA: "Okay fine, the second verse says '1+1=1,' yet we all know that
is a blatant mathematical error."
BOZ: "It is obvious that you are ignorant of the Book of Zeus. Had you
looked further, you would have noticed that this is in the first
chapter, titled 'The Window,' and the next verse talks about rain. We,
the followers of Zeus, know that you must read the text within its
context, and verses of the book help us understand other verses. So,
when the chapter of 'The Window' say that one plus one equals one, and
is then followed by a comment about rain, it is referring to two rain
drops sliding down your window. As the two come together, they form a
single drop. Many of the great commentaries on this book have said
that this is a deliberate metaphor for love, as when a man and a woman
get married, they become one. Also, it teaches us about the greatness
of the Divine Author, as while there are many Gods, they are all just
manifestations of the King of the Gods, Zeus. These are deep
metaphysical concepts that you need to understand, and they Book of
Zeus presents them in a breathtakingly simple fashion."
BOA: "I don't know about all that. But whatever, your book still loses
as it says the rain comes from the other town. That is a primitive
belief, as scientists now know that rain comes from clouds, something
the Book of Allah makes note of."
BOZ: "You're only exhibiting more ignorance my friend. Yes, scientists
have proven that rain comes from clouds, but they also proved that
clouds move across the sky. So, if water evaporates in this village
and becomes a cloud, the cloud moves onward before it can drop it back
on us. Just the same, water that evaporates and becomes a cloud in the
other town then moves here and falls on us in the form of rain. Sure,
your book makes note of clouds, but our book goes a step further and
offers a beautiful metaphor that teaches us about the movement of the
clouds. If this text was not from God, how did the author know that
rain begins in other parts of our land? Your book seems to think it
just falls from the sky."
[------ End Scenario ------]
So, it seems that the Book of Zeus is also free of errors! Well, what
about the book of Vishnu? It turns out that the man promoting that
text reveals that the work is also free of error. When it said
"1+1>2," it was making reference to units of water under freezing
conditions (note that the chapter is titled "Wind Burn"). If you fill
up a cup of water, then fill up a second cup of water, and freeze them
both you can end up with more than two cups of water if you thaw them
out later. Water expands, thus you might end up with enough water to
fill 2.5 cups, or 3 cups, or more! As for rain coming from a "stone,"
this meant a glacier. We're talking about water, and freezing, and my
very old copy of the Complete and Unabridged "The Little and Ives
Webster Dictionary" lists one of its definitions of "stone" on page
1361 as "to stiffen." Well, when water freezes the bonds stiffen, and
this was a "clear stone" (ice is clear) in the North. So, this is an
allusion to how ice forms, melts, evaporates, and becomes rain. It
appears that the Book of Vishnu is not only free of error, but
contains some amazing meteorological facts!
Now, the point of all this is that we have three books that are
apparently free from error. Furthermore, in religious debate it is
apparently impossible to prove that a book has any errors to the
believers. If the book is from God, it has no errors, thus if you see
what seems like an error, you might be able to explain it away with
the proper interpretation (the miracle of hermeneutics). So, even if
the books of Vishnu and Zeus challenge us to find errors, we could
never demonstrate that there are any errors.
> dear mister giron i hope you forgive my english
> level since english is my second language .
English is my first language, yet I still don't speak it fluently, so
all is good my friend!
[====== Next Comment ======]
Now, on to Altway's post:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=a3lto2%24bmf%241%40samba.rahul.net
> The problem arises from applying logic rather than intelligence.
I think this is a loaded statement. I think your post was a wonderful
contribution however, because it shows that a mystical approach to
one's text can bring it to a new light (btw I apologize if the term
"mystical" offends you). As I was trying to show with the analogy
above of the Books of Vishnu and Zeus, if one has faith in their text,
it can never be refuted in their eyes. What exactly it is that a text
is saying is completely up to the reader. I sort of discuss that here:
http://www.geocities.com/freethoughtmecca/philolit.html
So, no religious text can be refuted, as they are all beyond the
understanding of those who disblieve them (or work from with a
paradigm of disbelief). Still, I think from an objective point of view
Mr. Gulenoglu's point still stands, and I do not believe your argument
really escapted his argument.
-Denis Giron
http://www.geocities.com/freethoughtmecca/home.htm
Mete Gulenoglu
This argument(error of 4:82) is not an old one. I never seen this
argument used before.
I have a logical proof for the nonexistence of islamic god too:
1) If Allah exists then Quran has no errors
2) Quran has an error in 4:82
3) Therefore Allah doesnt exist
The error in 4:82:
"If Quran had been from other than Allah, you would have found
contradictions in the Quran"
Q: WHY would we have found contradictions in the Quran if it was from
other than Allah?
A: Possible answers:
1) Because ONLY Allah can write books that has no contradictions.
2) "Others than Allah" can write non-contradictory books which may
possess the same properties with Quran to a limit of having its
properties all EXCEPT the property of being non-contradictory, in ANY
combination, or having none of them; but ONLY Allah can write a book
that has all properties of Quran INCLUDING the property of having no
contradictions.
1 is obviously false, there is no need for a demonstration even, but
the demonstration for 2 will cover this one anyway refuting it.
Now for 2, I gave you the example of the computer program that will
put down one arabic letter each time one after another for X times
where X is the number of the total letters in the Quran and it COULD
be the case that the output is IDENTICAL TO QURAN, which means that
Quran is not something that is unproducable, it is made of the same
letters that exist today in Arabic. With the proper combination of
those letters you can produce ANYTHING including "a book that has ALL
properties of Quran INCLUDING the property of having no
contradictions" even better Quran ITSELF.
So with this example it is clear that it is NOT the case that ONLY
Allah can write a book which has all the properties of Quran
including hte property of having no contradictions.
Imagine going back in time to year 570 and run this computer program
and by chance computer will produce Quran even before it is
"revealed". (Or like munyas mentioned the pigs fly and typing monkey
thing, you can say you go back in time and make a monkey sit on an
arabic keyboard and make him hit the keys randomly for enough time and
it is possible that he will produce you the Quran.) HOW IS THIS
POSSIBLE????
Only Allah can write a book like Quran with no contradictions right?
Think about it. For that claim of Quran to be true there needs to be
something magical about Quran, like invisible letters (?) or something
magical that will prevent you from arranging the letters in a way that
it will be identical to Quran (like everytime you have the correct
sequnce of letters, the letters will change places with each other
magically or change to be other letters).
THERE IS ANOTHER PROBLEM HERE:
The answer 2 is contradicting the assumption of the "sura-like-it
challenge" of Quran, which goes:
- Only Allah can write a book that has the properties of Quran such as
eloquency, style, content.
Whereas 4:82 claims "others than Allah" can in fact write books that
possess such properties of Quran, that means they can write a SURA
LIKE IT WITH CONTRADICTIONS. Strange isnt it?
[Also the verse 11:35 can be considered here which goes "If
I(Muhamamd) fabricated this Quran, then its guilt is on me". Which
seems to be accepting the possibility of someone "other than Allah"
producing the Quran, which goes against both 4:82 and the sura-like-it
challenge]
Anyway, there is an error in 4:82.
(I thought simply mentioning the error in 4:82 in a simple way would
suffice people to see the error, I never knew it would be that
difficult to make you understand. Now that detailed explanation must
suffice.)
Mr Mahdi
>This argument(error of 4:82) is not an old one. I never seen this
>argument used before.
>
>I have a logical proof for the nonexistence of islamic god too:
>
>1) If Allah exists then Quran has no errors
>2) Quran has an error in 4:82
>3) Therefore Allah doesnt exist
It is obvious that the guy who calls himself "logical proof" needs to
understand his own arguments before talking about logic or proof. The Quran
talks about contradiction in 4:82, not where or not God exists because the
Quran makes a claim of having no contradictions!!! If "logical proof" knew
what "contradiction" meant, he wouldn't continue to embarass himself with these
nonsensical arguments he himself do not understand.
Before he even thinks of continuing this already vain debate, he needs to
understand what "contradiction" means. Then he needs to prove that the Quran
contains "contradictions." Not only he needs to work in his English but his
logic, since his hatred for Islam is driving him to come here to try to refute
something he can't. Thousands of people tried before him and will continue
after him and I don't know why he thinks he can be the "atheist hope." It is
downright silly.
So the argument of 4:82 is this: if you believe that the Quran is not from
Allah, prove it. The Quran does not have contradictions because Allah made it
sure it won't have any and showing any contradictions in the Quran would refute
the claim the Quran is from Allah.
See, I broke it down to you in simple English. Now if you want to find an
"error" in 4:82, prove the Quran has contradictions. Let me give you some
advice, you won't find any. But since you are an atheist, you don't believe in
the Creator (for reasons I mentioned in my last post), you can try all you
want. Like the thousands who tried in the past, you will fail.
Mahdi Muhammad
Mete Gulenoglu
clear here:
2) If Quran has a number of X properties, "others than Allah" can not
make a book that possesses all X properties of Quran, at most it can
be X-1; ONLY Allah can write a book that possesses all the X
properties. If "others than Allah" try to write a book that has all X
properties of Quran they can not make their book have the property of
"having no contradictions".
Example:
Say Quran has such properties(this is just a figure I am not saying
that is all it has):
1) eloquence e
2) style s
3) tales of prophets
4) no contradictions
Now according to the verse 4:82, if any "other than Allah" writes a
book that has properties 1, 2 and 3, it can't have the property 4,
also if it had properties 1,2 and 4, then it couldn't have the
property 3. That is you can't have all the properties if you are
"other than Allah". ONLY Allah can have them all in one book.
That's addition to my previous post, my argument is still the same.
_420...@headcase.novia.net
wrote:
>
>I have a logical proof for the nonexistence of islamic god too:
>
>1) If Allah exists then Quran has no errors
>2) Quran has an error in 4:82
>3) Therefore Allah doesnt exist
the argument does not seem correct. If I remember the "syllogism"
correctly, it should go something like this:
1. if P then Q [ P = Allah exists, Q = Qur'an has no errors ]
2. P [ Allah exists ]
3. therefore Q [ Qur'an has no errors ]
I don't recall the logical derivation as
1. if P then Q
2. Q
3. therefore P
I think you need to double check your "syllogism"
Mr Mahdi
>the argument does not seem correct. If I remember the "syllogism"
>correctly, it should go something like this:
Not only the atheist you are responding to does not know what a syllogism is,
he doesn't even know what contradiction means.
The argument in 4:82 as I repeated before is that if the Quran is from other
than God, it would have many mistakes. This "logical proof" person thinks the
argument is that if there is a contradiction, then Allah doesn't exist. The
ayah is not talking about whether or not Allah exist but whether or not the
Quran is from Allah. He can't even understand what 4:82 is saying, yet he
wants to "refute" Islam.
As you pointed out, "logical proof" even got the syllogism wrong. Many people
who are in college are required to take a course in logic. One of the first
things we learn is syllogism. Although I am not arguing that the use of
syllogism is always right when it comes to debate (because it is not), the
point is that if you want to use it, at least use it correctly!
"Logical proof" obviously needs to go back to his "anti-Islam crusade" drawing
board and learn the basic facts he keeps missing.
Mahdi Muhammad
tamer
i am originaly from turkey as well and i did not mean anything when i
said
mete is christian.i think i misunderstand one of his messege in
sos.islam forum. he could be a hindu too . :) no worries . i would
like to comments to your points.i erase some of the parts in your
messege i hope you dont mind.
you: Well, I still think there are a number of problems here. First,
let's
suppose your man with the book is holding a book titled "book of
Allah." On the next corner (as you mentioned, there are many corners
with many men and their books) is a man with "Book of Zeus," and on
the corner after that there is the man promoting "Book of Vishnu." So,
while you said check this one first, I actually do that, but check the
other two as well. Here are the first three verses of each book:
Book of Allah:
Chapter I, "The Wind."
(1) This is the word of God.
(2) One plus one equals two.
(3) Rain comes from clouds.
Book of Zeus:
Chapter I, "The Window."
(1) This is the word of God.
(2) One plus one equals one.
(3) Rain comes from the other town.
Book of Vishnu:
Chapter I, "Wind Burn."
(1) This is the word of God.
(2) One plus one is more than two.
(3) Rain comes from the clear stone in the north.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
my resbonses to your point
a-)
book of Allah
1)this is the word of God
2)1+1=2
3)rain comes from cloud
4)NO MORE REVELATION FROM THE GOD
why do you think we ignore number four and if we dont how can we
refute it?if number 4 is true then i am afraid book of visnu and book
of zeus is false(assuming that those books came after quran if they
came before quran i would like to see where in those books claims they
are from God?)
b-)you accepted my name without question and you called me tamer in
fact it is my nick name but i wanted you to call me this name so i
wrote my name as tamer and you resbonded calling me tamer. then please
answer me that quran claims it is from God what makes you to reject
to call quran book from God? you did not reject to call me as tamer?
c-) as a last point if i find any book before quran which claims to
be from Creator and his last revelation to people then i would take
that book as from Creator(since book says so ) but try to find error
in it to dismiss its claim.
why i would try to find error? because Creator says he is all knowing
in his book.what would it be a good error? himmmm if in one verse it
says 2 thousand
bathrooms but other verse says 4 thousand bathrooms i think there is
an error here unless there is no acceptable explaniation in the book
for this diffirences
you:Well, I, the man who disbelieves in all three books,
what makes you to disbelieve in them?what is your proof that they are
not true?
if you say they claim unvisible things. what makes you to trust in
your eyes?
since we all can not see electric but know it by its work. well guess
what this is the arguement of book of Allah in that book Creator says
you can not see me but know me by my work.and give example such as
creation around us ,rain etc.again what makes you refute this claim?
you: sees that the Book of Zeus and the Book of Vishnu are not free of
errors, while the
Book of Allah is free of errors. Yet still, I am not convinced that
the Book of Allah is from God.
but book of Allah claim this also could you please tell me your
position that are you challanger?denis you take my name without
question why dont you take
book of Allah's claims without question?what makes you think that you
assumed right away that book is not true and what keeps you away from
being convinced?
you:Why do I still disbelieve despite the
fact that it is free of error? Well, because it is possible for a
non-divine source to write something free from error (there's proof of
this in the fact that I wrote those three verses, and they are free of
error).
but before you challenging the error-free part what makes you skip to
challanging statement of this book from GOD part?well also if
author is non divine but claiming divine dont you think that this is
call deceiving?where
is your proof that person who claim this book from GOD is a
deciever?quran never claims that people can not write book without
error quran claims that this book is from GOD if not from GOD you
could find error in it becouse GOD is error free according to this
book.please i like to remind you that there is no non-divine authors
name on quran, in fact book of Allah's author claim to be divine in
first person.
denis could you please give me your reason what makes you disbelieve
in these statements do you know something that we dont know?
you:Furthermore, take note of this: imagine that while we have yet to
come
to any proof either way for the Book of Allah, we all agree that books
attributed to Zeus and Vishnu haev errors. So the man with the Book of
Allah (BOA) walks home after a hard day of missionary work, and sees
the man with the Book of Zeus (BOZ). The conversation goes like this:
but you did not show any proof against the book of Allah's claim that
this book
>from GOD. i also did little change in the scenario below and used
capital letters please dont get me wrong about using capital letters.
[------ Begin Scenario ------]
BOA: "Hey man, we all know your book ain't from God, so give up
already."
---quicke note:BOA does not ask believer to do that but for the sake
of arguement lets agree with above words.
BOZ: "What? How do you know this is not written by Zeus, the King of
the Gods?"
I SAW YOUR BOOK CLAIM FROM GOD JUST LIKE MY BOOK BUT YOUR BOOK CAME
AFTER MY BOOK AND MY BOOK DOES NOT SAY/HAVE ANYTHING ABOUT YOU IN
FACT MY BOOK SAYS
IT IS THE END OF REVELATION FROM GOD WHY DO YOU THINK MY BOOK LYING?
AND " your book is loaded with errors! You open to the first
page and right away the errors are obvious."
BOZ: "There are no errors in my book. I challenge you to show me a
single error!"
BOA: "Okay fine, the second verse says '1+1=1,' yet we all know that
is a blatant mathematical error."AND HOW COME YOUR BOOK DOESNT REFUTE
CLAIM OF MY BOOK? SINCE MY BOOK CLAIMS TO BE FROM GOD AND CAME BEFORE
YOUR BOOK. HOW COME BOOK OF ZEUS DOES NOT SAY I DID NOT SEND BOOK OF
ALLAH? GIVING THE FACT THAT MY BOOK CONTRADICTS YOUR BOOK IN SECOND
VERSE.(1+1=2)
BOZ: "It is obvious that you are ignorant of the Book of Zeus. Had you
looked further, you would have noticed that this is in the first
chapter, titled 'The Window,' and the next verse talks about rain. We,
the followers of Zeus, know that you must read the text within its
context, and verses of the book help us understand other verses. So,
when the chapter of 'The Window' say that one plus one equals one, and
is then followed by a comment about rain, it is referring to two rain
drops sliding down your window. As the two come together, they form a
single drop. Many of the great commentaries on this book have said
that this is a deliberate metaphor for love, as when a man and a woman
get married, they become one.
BOA:BUT AGAIN YOUR GOD IS NOT ALL KNOWING DOES NOT KNOW THAT MY BOOK
ALSO CLAIM SAME THINGS TOO AND CONTRADICTS YOUR BOOK IN SECOND VERSE
ON MATH. PLUS SOME COMMENTARIES OF BOOK OF ZEUS THINGS MANY
COMMENTARIES YOU REFERED ARE HERETIC
AND THEY SAYS THAT REFERED COMMENTARIES CLAIMS THINGS THAT NO CLEAR
EVIDENCE IN THE BOOK. JUST ASSUMATION.
:Also, it teaches us about the greatness
of the Divine Author.as while there are many Gods, they are all just
manifestations of the King of the Gods, Zeus. These are deep
metaphysical concepts that you need to understand, and they Book of
Zeus presents them in a breathtakingly simple fashion."
AGAIN I BELIEVE THEY ASUMING THAT NOWHERE ZEUS CLAIMS THAT. IS THERE
ANYWHERE ZEUS CLAIMS THAT?BUT MY GOD CLEARLY CLAIMS HE IS NOT BEGOTTEN
NOR BEGET.
BOA: "I don't know about all that. But whatever, your book still loses
as it says the rain comes from the other town. That is a primitive
belief, as scientists now know that rain comes from clouds, something
the Book of Allah makes note of."
BOZ: "You're only exhibiting more ignorance my friend. Yes, scientists
have proven that rain comes from clouds, but they also proved that
clouds move across the sky. So, if water evaporates in this village
and becomes a cloud, the cloud moves onward before it can drop it back
on us. Just the same, water that evaporates and becomes a cloud in the
other town then moves here and falls on us in the form of rain. Sure,
your book makes note of clouds, but our book goes a step further and
offers a beautiful metaphor that teaches us about the movement of the
clouds. If this text was not from God, how did the author know that
rain begins in other parts of our land? Your book seems to think it
just falls from the sky."
WELL I NEVER CLAIMED MY BOOK IS SCINCE BOOK I SAID IT IS A DIVINE BOOK
MY BOOK CLAIMS ITS FROM GOD AND ITS LAST.THEREFORE I BELIEVE YOUR BOOK
IS FALSE I AM AN HONEST PERSON I SEARCH FOR EVERY CLAIM AND TAKE THEM
SERIOUS I FOUND ONLY IN BOOK OF ALLAH GOD TALKS AS FIRST PERSON AND I
TRIED TO REFUTE BOOK OF ALLAH'S CLAIM BUT I COULD NOT ABLE
TOO.THEREFORE I CAN NOT BELIEVE IN YOUR BOOK IS FROM GOD BEFORE I
REFUTE BOOK OF ALLAH'S CLAIM.
[------ End Scenario ------]
So, it seems that the Book of Zeus is also free of errors!
BOOK OF ZEUS HAS ONE ERROR INSIDE ITS CLAIMS FROM GOD AND CAME AFTER
BOOK OF ALLAH BUT DOES NOT KNOW THAT BOOK OF ALLAH ALSO CLAIMS TO BE
>FROM GOD.IF IT WAS TRUE IT WOULD REFUTE MY BOOK CLAIM BECAUCE MY BOOK
ALSO CLAIMS FROM THE GOD.
you: Well, what
about the book of Vishnu? It turns out that the man promoting that
text reveals that the work is also free of error. When it said
"1+1>2," it was making reference to units of water under freezing
conditions (note that the chapter is titled "Wind Burn"). If you fill
up a cup of water, then fill up a second cup of water, and freeze them
both you can end up with more than two cups of water if you thaw them
out later. Water expands, thus you might end up with enough water to
fill 2.5 cups, or 3 cups, or more! As for rain coming from a "stone,"
this meant a glacier. We're talking about water, and freezing, and my
very old copy of the Complete and Unabridged "The Little and Ives
Webster Dictionary" lists one of its definitions of "stone" on page
1361 as "to stiffen." Well, when water freezes the bonds stiffen, and
this was a "clear stone" (ice is clear) in the North. So, this is an
allusion to how ice forms, melts, evaporates, and becomes rain. It
appears that the Book of Vishnu is not only free of error, but
contains some amazing meteorological facts!
WELL AGAIN IF BOOK OF VISNU CAME FROM TRUE GOD IT WOULD KNOW ABOUT MY
BOOK SINCE MY BOOK ALSO CLAIM FROM GOD , GOD WOULD SAY I DID NOT SEND
BOOK OF ALLAH
PLUS MY BOOK ALSO SAYS 1+1=2 AND THERE IS CONTRADICTIONS BETWEEN BOOK
OF VISNU
AND MY BOOK PLUS MY BOOK SAYS IN MATH 1+1=2 AND I FIND THIS
SCINTIFICLY CORRECT
IF MY BOOK SAYS 1+1=5 THEN I COULD PROBABLY CONSIDER ABOUT MY BOOK
BEING FALSE TOO BUT THERE NO ERROR IN MY BOOK YET.
Now, the point of all this is that we have three books that are
apparently free from error. Furthermore, in religious debate it is
apparently impossible to prove that a book has any errors to the
believers. If the book is from God, it has no errors, thus if you see
what seems like an error, you might be able to explain it away with
the proper interpretation (the miracle of hermeneutics). So, even if
the books of Vishnu and Zeus challenge us to find errors, we could
never demonstrate that there are any errors.
> dear mister giron i hope you forgive my english
> level since english is my second language .
English is my first language, yet I still don't speak it fluently, so
all is good my friend!
I HOPE YOU UNDERSTAND MY POINT AND FORGIVE THAT I USED CAPITAL
LETTERS. I DID NOT USE CAPITAL LETTERS LIKE SOME MISSIONARIES WRITE IN
CAPITAL LETTERS TO
TRY TO EFFECT YOU.I USED TO SHOW MY POINT.
SALAM
gksh...@ucdavis.edu
You are correct that a syllogism goes as you stated, but one of
the very powerful things about logic is that it seeks to consider
all possible truth values of the propositions in logical "sentences",
such as conditionals, and to specify the effect (if any) on the
truth value of the sentence as a whole.
Mr. Gulenoglu's proof is not quite as you stated it. What he is
saying that
1. P -> Q
2. !Q
3. !P
which is, of course, true in standard bivalent logics. Note that
P is "Allah exists", Q is "Qur'an has no errors", !Q is "Allah
doesn't exist", and !P is "Qur'an has at least one error". Perhaps
it will be easier to see it in a neutral symbolic context:
1. If x = 3, then y = 4
2. NOT y = 4
3. Therefore, NOT x = 3
This is pretty standard logic, in fact I think it even has a name
such as "denial of the consequent", or "modus tollens" if memory
serves. In the interesting page at
"http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/pd/d-10.htm", I find that it
even has a standard Arabic name, "raf al-tali".
Greg Shenaut
Mete Gulenoglu
My argument isnt in the form of:
1) If p then q
2) q
3) Therefore p
My argument is in this form:
1) if p then q
2) NOT q
3) therefore NOT p
Altway
news:a42rqr$gm$1...@samba.rahul.net...
> >1) If Allah exists then Quran has no errors
> >2) Quran has an error in 4:82
> >3) Therefore Allah doesnt exist
> the argument does not seem correct. If I remember the "syllogism"
correctly, it should go something like this:
> 1. if P then Q [ P = Allah exists, Q = Qur'an has no errors ]
> 2. P [ Allah exists ]
> 3. therefore Q [ Qur'an has no errors ]
I don't recall the logical derivation as
1. if P then Q
2. Q
3. therefore P
> I think you need to double check your "syllogism"
Comment:-
Well discerned!
P can be associated with many other things (If Allah exists then q1, q2, q3
etc
Q can be associated with many other things.( if If p1, p2, p3 etc then the
Quran has no errors.
There are also steps missing i.e. The Quran is from Allah, It has been
properly translated, it is a book rather than a translation, it contains
logical propositions, error means such and such etc.)
You can see this error better if you take a more concrete example:-
(1) If this orange exists then a seed must have germinated.
(2) A seed did not germinate.
(3) Therefore this orange does not exist.
Altway
construed as
agreement with critics:-
Please note that I will not be at home until April, will probably have no
access to e-mail
and cannot respond till then.
M.S.M. Saifullah
> "If the Qur'an was from other than Allah, it would have many
> 'ikhtilaafan'."
>
> Now, as it goes, you don't find many "ikhtilaafan," so we pull a
> little modus tollens (dare I say "denying the consequent"?) and the
> logic follows that it is not from other than Allah (i.e. it is from
> Allah).
The argument here is that a word can be treated as abstract logical terms.
Let us consider the difference between:
"ikhtilaafan" is an Arabic word and
"ikhtilaafan" has 11 letters
In one case "ikhtilaafan" is refered to as an Arabic word and in the other
case it is treated as an 11 lettered word.
Now if we apply this sort of logic to the Qur'an we can write the verse
4:82 as:
"Do they not consider the Qur'an (with care)? Had it been from other than
Allah, they would surely have found therein many ikhtilaafan."
What we can do is to consider "ikhtilaafan" as a word and not consider its
meaning. Then we can start counting the number of occurances of
"ikhtilaafan" in the Qur'an and see whether it occurs many times or simply
once. As I have already said that this word occurs in the Qur'an only
once. Therefore, had the Qur'an been from any other than Allah, the
logician would surely have found therein many "ikhtilaafan". This is one
way to look at this issue. The other is to work through the Qur'an by
considering the meaning og "ikhtilaafan".
This is a clear cut argument if one has bothered to read through
carefully.
> Okay, so now, if I have the argument correct, maybe Dr. Saifullah
> could explain why a lack of errors, or a lack of numerous instances of
> the word "ikhtilaafan" implies that the Qur'an is divine? Is it
> possible that if (in some perverse parallel universe) that a man could
> write a text in Arabic that is both free of errors and contains the
> word "ikhtilaafan" only once? I think it is surely possible, thus this
> does not imply divine authorship by any stretch, even for the Qur'an.
> Dr. Saifullah has not given us any reason why we should accept the
> special pleading he has offered on behalf of the Qur'an (to
> distinguish it from a phone directory).
You see the main problem is that you do not read carefully and end up
wasting our time in getting into pedagogy. The verse clearly talks about a
book called the Qur'an revealed some 1400 years ago. It does not say
anything about the phone directory. The phone directory itself does not
claim that it is 100% correct. Trying reading fine prints and disclaimers
that the directory was correct when it went into the print.
Besides that the argument is about the use of logic in the Qur'an and is
definitely not about "ikhtilaafan". Let us clarify it using some more
examples.
In verse 3:59 we read:
"Surely the likeness of Isa is with Allah as the likeness of Adam; He
created him from dust, then said to him, Be, and he was."
We can consider it in an abstract way by saying "the likeness of A is as
the likeness of B". We can treat A and B as abstract logical terms which
some people might like to refer to as parameters or variables.
In what way are A and B alike in an abstract way. The answer is that their
number is the same, i.e. the number of times that the noun words or noun
phrases occur is the same. Hence both "Jesus" and "Adam" occurs in the
Qur'an 25 times.
Consider this:
"... His similitude is that of a dog: if you attack him, he lolls out his
tongue, or if you leave him alone, he (still) lolls out his tongue. That
is the similitude of those who reject Our signs;..." [7:176]
In other words, the likeness of those who reject Our signs is as the
likeness of the dog. Both the phrase Those who reject our signs" and the
word "dog" occur in the Qur'an 5 times.
What about the abstract terms A not equal to B, for example, in 4:95?
"Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and
those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and
their persons."
The difference of the occurances of the words for "those who sit" and
those who "strive in the cause of Allah" is 1, i.e., they are not the
same.
Isolated cases? However, we notice that the word "waheedan" meaning
"alone" occurs in the Qur'an only once:
"Leave Me and him whom I created alone (waheedan)." [Qur'an 74:11]
We are often told that we should balance between wanting the good in life
(i.e., dunya) and wanting the good in the Hearafter. When we look for
balance between these two words in the Qur'an we find it: Both the word
"dunya" and "Akhira" occur 115 times; a point which M A S Abdel Haleem
also mentions in his book "Understanding the Qur'an: Themes and Style".
To look for logic in the book is to look, not to the meanings of the
words, but to treat them as abstract logical terms. This is precisely what
was done earlier with couple of examples to clarify the use of
"ikhtilaafan" as a word without considering the meaning and with more
examples in this post to expound the earlier one. One really wonders if
Dajjal understands what has been said. We are talking about the Qur'an and
he compares a telephone directory with it!
Wassalam
Saifullah
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/
Denis Giron
> ...
Yet another quick contribution to this thread, and then I'm off
again...
I'd like to say that the responses in this portion of the thread are
rather revealing, and explain why many do not get what Mr. Gulenoglu
is trying to say. First, let us look at Mr. Gulenoglu's controversial
syllogism:
(1) If Allah exists then Quran has no errors
(2) Quran has an error in 4:82
(3) Therefore Allah doesnt exist
I haven't read thoroughly through his article, so I don't know what he
is getting at here. Personally, I think the above (if it stands alone)
is a very bad argument. However, it is perfectly valid, and the fact
that certain people jumped on the bandwagon of one person who
misunderstood it says a lot.
The confusion starts when an anonymous poster using the handle
_4209...@headcase.novia.net wrote:
> the argument does not seem correct.
The gentleman would have to be much more specific regarding what he
means by "correct." The problem, however, is that the gentleman has
misunderstoof Mr. Gulenoglu's syllogism, and thus badly misrepresents
in the following:
> I don't recall the logical derivation as
> 1. if P then Q
> 2. Q
> 3. therefore P
> I think you need to double check your "syllogism"
As Mr. Gulenoglu has already pointed out, this is *NOT* his syllogism.
Let's let P = "Allah Exists," and Q = "Qur'an has errors." We get:
P --> ~Q
~~Q
--------
~P
The argument is perfectly valid, and is a simple modus tollens. So,
Mr. Gullenoglu does not have to check his syllogism with regard to
validity. However, while I have not read his further comments, I might
add that the Muslims can cast serious doubt on the first premise, and
thus the soundness of the syllogism over all.
Mr. Mahdi, however, jumped on the opportunity to attack Mr. Gulenoglu
once he saw someone disputing what he was saying:
> Not only the atheist you are responding to does not know what
> a syllogism is, he doesn't even know what contradiction means.
I'm convinced that Mahdi has not really considered the finer points of
Mr. Gulenoglu's argument, thus I'm suspicious of his quick dismissal
of what Mr. Gulenoglu knows. Furthermore, it seems that Mahdi is the
one who is not clear on what a syllogism is, as he failed to realize
that Mr. Gulenoglu put forth a perfectly valid syllogism. Greg Shenaut
also made a wonderful contribution to the thread saying that there is
an Arabic term for Modus Tollens, which is "raf al-tali".
Mahdi continues:
> The argument in 4:82 as I repeated before is that if the Quran
> is from other than God, it would have many mistakes.
Yes, this is what everyone has been repeating. The problem still
stands with Mr. Gulenoglu's original question, which is why a lack of
mistakes would imply the text is of a divine origin. Why should we
assume such? While I have not yet familiarized myself with Mr.
Gulenoglu's latest versions of his argument, I think this one point
still stands. You proudly present the situation as being one where Mr.
Gulenoglu has been soundly refuted, but I think the questions of his
first post have basically gone unanswered.
> As you pointed out, "logical proof" even got the syllogism wrong.
Well, as Mr. Gulenoglu, Mr. Shenaut, and now even I have pointed out,
there is nothing wrong with the structure of the syllogism. In light
of this fact, we must begin to see the real irony in the following
comments:
> Many people who are in college are required to take a course in
> logic. One of the first things we learn is syllogism. [...] the
> point is that if you want to use it, at least use it correctly!
So, for all the mockery that Mr. Mahdi heaped upon Mr. Gulenoglu, it
turns out that the syllogism is okay. The above implies that Mahdi
actually knows what a syllogism is (i.e. he is included in the "we"
that has learned this simple concept in a college level intro to
logic), but it is now apparent that Mahdi only went along with someone
else's erroneous claim.
To sort of brush up on the original point, let it again be stated that
the original verse mentioned (4:82) has a structure that argues that a
lack of errors implies divine origin. There is no reason to assume
such, and in fact such an argument can be demonstrated as being false
(i.e. I can produce a text that is free of errors, yet not from a
divine source). The only way out of this is to take the approach that
Dr. Saifullah took, which is to employ some sort of special pleading
for the Qur'an. Unfortunately, it is not clear why we should accept
this special pleading. These are the strongest points of the thread,
and they are wholly untouched in my opinion.
-Denis Giron
Mete Gulenoglu
Did you invent this "use of logic" thing yourself? I never heard in my
life that "use of logic" means that you take the words and count them
and see if they are equal and if they are equal this is logical if
they are not, then it is not logical. Does that mean that the proper
way to read Quran is to sit and count words without caring about their
meanings? Then neither "Allah" or "Afterlife" words are meaningful.
In your post you say "the word ikhtilafaan exists once in Quran
THEREFORE if Quran was from any other than Allah it would have the
word ikhtilafaan more than once". How does that follow?
You want to interpret the verse 4:82 to mean that:
"If Quran was form other than Allah, the word ikhtilafaan would exist
many times in it"
First of all: Such an interpretation does not exist in tafsirs. I hope
you know all the 30 (or 50) sciences that one needs to know before
trying to interpret the Quran on his own because according to hadith
if you dont then unfortunately you became a kafir by interpreting the
Quran with your own mind.
Second: interpreting the verse that way does not clear away the
problem I am pointing at. Now you need to explain me this:
- WHY would the Quran have the word "ikhtilafaan" more than once IF
the Quran was from other than Allah?
Cant "others than Allah" not write books with the word "ikhtilafaan"
existing just once in a book?
Now if you want to stay an orthodox Muslim and take the 4:82 to mean
what it is:
"If the Quran was other than Allah, you would find many contradictions
in it"
Then answer me this:
WHY WOULD QURAN HAVE MANY CONTRADICTIONS IN IT IF IT WAS FROM OTHER
THAN ALLAH?
So no matter how you want to interpret it I want to know these, choose
one which applies to your liking:
1) Why would Quran have the word ikhtilafaan many times in it if the
Quran was from other than Allah?
2) Why would Quran have many contradictions in it if it was from other
than Allah?
Answer these questions dont try to dodge it with telling me irrelevant
numerology stuff.
Mete Gulenoglu
> my resbonses to your point
> a-)
> book of Allah
> 1)this is the word of God
> 2)1+1=2
> 3)rain comes from cloud
> 4)NO MORE REVELATION FROM THE GOD
> why do you think we ignore number four and if we dont how can we
> refute it?if number 4 is true then i am afraid book of visnu and book
> of zeus is false(assuming that those books came after quran if they
> came before quran i would like to see where in those books claims they
> are from God?)
All of your arguments are based on the same thing:
"Quran says it is from God, do you have any proof to refute it? No,
therefore it is from God."
1) This is a LOGICAL FALLACY CALLED ARGUMENTUM AD IGNORANTIAM.
2) Also THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE ONE WHO MAKES THE CLAIM. WE ARE
NOT SUPPOSED TO BELIEVE QURAN'S CLAIM UNTIL IT IS PROVEN TO BE TRUE.
Hoping you to understand.
I will tell you what:
I am God, I created the world, you and everyone else just 5 minutes
ago and I created you all with an impression of a history, with the
current state of mind you have, with memories and all. NOW REFUTE THIS
CAN YOU? IF YOU CANT REFUTE IT (WHICH YOU CANT) THEN IT MEANS IT IS
TRUE RIGHT?
Mr Mahdi
Dajjal `Abdul-Khinzeer (as he likes to call himself!!!) interjected:
>The problem still
>stands with Mr. Gulenoglu's original question, which is why a lack of
>mistakes would imply the text is of a divine origin.
I know what the "argument" of this "logical proof" person. It is nonsense,
plain and simple.
Now let me tell you why it is nonsense: he doesn't understand the argument in
4:82. The argument in that ayah is not talking about the existence of God or
that lack of contradiction makes it automatically from God. The argument is
that the Quran says it is from God and as a result, Allah protected it from
corruption and mistakes. If the Quran claims to be error-free and you find an
error in it, that refutes the claim of the Quran and the validity of Islam.
Again, this is the argument.
A book from a man can contain no errors or contradictions. But like I said,
that is not the argument of 4:82.
So both you and "logical proof" don't understand the argument. That ends
another vain attempt in "refuting" Islam.
>but I think the questions of his
>first post have basically gone unanswered.
LOL, it was answered before and again in this post. So what's next?
Mahdi Muhammad
Mete Gulenoglu
(ALTWAY this is for you too)
> The argument in 4:82 as I repeated before is that if the Quran is from other
> than God, it would have many mistakes. This "logical proof" person thinks the
> argument is that if there is a contradiction, then Allah doesn't exist.
NO I DONT. This is a strawman.
I am making my argument clear AGAIN:
1) If Allah exists (that means the God of Islam exists and He revealed
the holy book called Quran to Prophet Muhamamd), then Quran has no
errors.
2) I CLAIM THAT THERE IS AN ERROR IN QURAN, IN VERSE 4:82
which is
it claims that
"If the Quran was from other than Allah, it would have errors",
but I ARGUE THAT THIS IS A FALSE CLAIM,
because:
assuming that Quran is from "others than Allah"
THEN it should be the case that EITHER:
a) Quran has an error or errors
OR
b) Quran has NO ERRORS
WHEREAS
the verse 4:82 claims:
assuming that Quran is from "others than Allah"
THEN it should be the case that
Quran has an error or errors
BUT
it is possible that BOTH that
Quran is from "others than Allah"
AND
Quran has NO ERRORS
SINCE the verse denies that possibility, it is in error.
3) Since we said in 1 that if Allah exists then Quran has no errors,
then it follows that if there is an error in Quran then Allah doesn't
exist, and since in 2 I show an error in Quran then it follows that
Allah DOESN'T EXIST.
In order to disprove my argument you have to SHOW ME THAT the
following proposition is ANALYTICALLY FALSE:
"Quran is from 'others than Allah' AND Quran has no errors"
If you reply with an irrelevant thing again, I will just give up
trying to make you understand and then I wont even read your posts
anymore.
> As you pointed out, "logical proof" even got the syllogism wrong.
Sorry I didnt get the syllogism wrong, it is you who got it wrong.
Mete Gulenoglu
went ignored completely, only MSM Saifullah made a comment about it
and all he did was just rewriting the verse which I claim there is a
logical fallacy, so obviously he didn't understand what I am talking
about just like he didn't understand what I was talking about the
verse 4:82, which he just posted a page from his website as is,
thinking it answers my question, but that page has got nothing to do
with what I am talking about, the only relevance is that both talk of
4:82, some think that just saying anything about the verse I am
talking about will be sufficient to answer my questions and nullify my
arguments if I have any, BUT NOT everything that talks about 4:82 is
an answer to my question. Anyway since he didn't get my point in 3:183
I want to make the problem of 3:183 clear to MSM Saifullah:
[3:183]
"To those that declare: 'God has commanded us to believe in no apostle
unless he brings down the fire to consume an offering.' say: 'Other
apostles before me have come to you with veritable signs and worked
the miracle you asked for. Why did you slay them, if what you say be
true?'"
FIRST PROBLEM:
Did those who declare that God commanded them not to believe in any
apostles unless he brings that miracle mentioned REALLY KILL ANY OF
SUCH APOSTLES?
Lets assume few hundreds maybe a thousand years ago some people who
are of the same race with those who made this claim in verse 3:183
killed someone who claimed to be a prophet and performed the miracle
in the verse, WHAT'S THAT GOT TO DO WITH THE ONES WHO TELL MUHAMAMD
THAT THEY ARE COMMANDED BY GOD NOT TO BELIEVE IN ANY PROPHETS WITHOUT
THAT MIRACLE? Those mentioned in the verse killed no prophet, Quran's
claim is INCORRECT.
SECOND PROBLEM:
How does it follow that if it is true that they got commanded by God
not to believe in any prophets unless he brings the miracle mentioned
in the verse then they WOULD NOT KILL THOSE PROPHETS? That's a NON
SEQUITOR.
THIRD PROBLEM:
If the ones who tell Muhamamd about that miracle criterion they have
for recognizing a prophet IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY THEIR REJECTION OF
MUHAMMAD'S PROPHETHOOD CLAIMS then is Quran/Muhamamd trying to nullify
their argument with such an answer pointing that they killed prophets
with such miracle? So INSTEAD DEALING WITH THE ARGUMENT ATTACKING THEM
IN PERSON AND CLAIMING THEIR ARGUMENT FAILS BECAUSE OF WHAT THEY DID?
Then that is AD HOMINEM logical fallacy.
vmi...@yahoo.com
> First, let us look at Mr. Gulenoglu's controversial
> syllogism:
> (1) If Allah exists then Quran has no errors
> (2) Quran has an error in 4:82
> (3) Therefore Allah doesnt exist
> I haven't read thoroughly through his article, so I don't know what he
> is getting at here. Personally, I think the above (if it stands alone)
> is a very bad argument. However, it is perfectly valid, and the fact
> that certain people jumped on the bandwagon of one person who
> misunderstood it says a lot.
Not only that it is a bad argument, it is also entirely without basis.
What 4:82 says is that if the Qur'an was from other than Allah(SWT),
there would be many errors in it.
There is no way to deduce Mr. Gulenlioglu's syllogism from what the Qur'an
says.
Furthermore, he has not proved that there is any error in 4:82. End of
story.
Viqar Ahmed
--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service
tamer
> >
>
>you: All of your arguments are based on the same thing:
>
> "Quran says it is from God, do you have any proof to refute it? No,
> therefore it is from God."
>
> 1) This is a LOGICAL FALLACY CALLED ARGUMENTUM AD IGNORANTIAM.
>
> 2) Also THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE ONE WHO MAKES THE CLAIM. WE ARE
> NOT SUPPOSED TO BELIEVE QURAN'S CLAIM UNTIL IT IS PROVEN TO BE TRUE.
>
>
--yes my arguements are based on same thing. and this is also my
point.but in my opinion you are commiting fallacy because you want ME
to prove to you quran is the word of God.but i think QURAN proves you
that its from the God. in fact
there is no author claimed to be the author of quran in history why?
we all know
that in the time of revelation of quran there were some people who
believed 5 books in OT is divine andmoses is the author of these 5
books . but this view has not changed people mind about that 5 books
being divine.till to revelation of quran all the claimed to be divine
books has authors wrote them and this fact has not changed people mind
that they believed these books are divine
. why do you think author or authors of quran did not
claim tthis masterpiece their own?
i have simple logic quran is the only book claimed from the GOD and no
other
people claimed ownership of quran i believe quran is from GOD. if you
have strong prove against my claim or if you know some authors who
claimed quran as their masterpiece in history show me then we can talk
about authorship.
you:Hoping you to understand.
---yes this is also fallacy . i dont know in latin name but something
to do with accusing person's ability to understand.
>
>you: I will tell you what:
> I am God, I created the world, you and everyone else just 5 minutes
> ago and I created you all with an impression of a history, with the
> current state of mind you have, with memories and all. NOW REFUTE THIS
> CAN YOU? IF YOU CANT REFUTE IT (WHICH YOU CANT) THEN IT MEANS IT IS
> TRUE RIGHT?
--well mete i see that you can not catch my point and this makes me
sad. maybe i should tell you in turkish but no i will try in english
again.
I TOLD IN MY PREVIUS MESSEGE THAT I AM ALSO TRYING TO REFUTE QURAN
BUT I COULD NOT ABLE TO REFUTE THAT BOOK. also that book came before
your claim and does not say anything about you. now being a open mind
person and taking your claim also serious i would like you to refute
quran and convince me on this subject then i take your claim more
serious.since you claim to be GOD and there is another book CLAIM TO
BE FROM GOD TOO. if you want i like to make it more clear
that i am a humble mortal who has one book its author CLAIM to be GOD
and one country fellow in sos.islam messege board who claims to be
god.giving the fact that quran's claim much earlier then your claim
and there is nothing about you in quran therefore in my opinion burden
of proof rest on your shoulder to prove that quran's claim is wrong
and you are a god. this was my arguement against denis's book of visnu
and book of zeus.
according to denis they all claimed to be from GOD and they all came
after quran(just a scenerio in real life no book but only quran's
author claimed to be GOD and till this day no other candidate claimed
authorship of quran)
my objection was
1)quran claims from GOD too
2)quran is earlier then those two books
3)if those books true and really from the true GOD THEN IN MY OPINION
GOD would
answer the claim of quran and refute that claim(simple logic just like
there is two letters under your name but actually they are fake and
you write another letter then would you not say earlier two letters
are not from me?)
4)quran is ealier and i can not refute its claim being from the GOD
and quran does not say anything about coming another book from GOD
plus quran claims
as a last messege why should i ignore this?
5)also giving the fact that those two books contradicts quran in verse
two and
can not refute quran's claim i think i consider that those two books
has error in it.
just like number five dear mete you claim to be god too and seems like
you can not refute quran giving the fact that there is a contradiction
between quranic story of creation and your creation story then i
believe you had error.
saglicakla kal
peace
Denis Giron
> ...
When I have time (by this week end, I promise), I'm going to sit down
and respond to the other threads. Particularly large apologies from me
are due to Imran Aijaz and Dr. Saifullah for my failure to yet respond
to their lengthy retorts in the Trinity and Midrash threads,
respectively. I just wanted to again drop a quick line in this
thread...
This is a response to Mr. Mahdi's post, the full text of which has
been archived here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=a4e1vm%247ud%241%40samba.rahul.net
> I know what the "argument" of this "logical proof" person.
Well, there are multiple issues here. Mr. Gulenoglu has moved into a
new realm of the debate regarding existence, that I do not necessarily
support (mainly because existence is not a predicate, but that's a
whole nother issue). However, Mr. Mahdi wrote the above in response to
my rundown of Mr. Gulenoglu's original point (which is found in the
opening post of this thread). I happen to treat that subtle point as
being separate from the more recent argument for the non-existence of
Allah. Regarding that original point, Mr. Mahdi does not understand
the argument, as was very clear in what he wrote.
> Now let me tell you why it is nonsense: he doesn't understand the argument in
> 4:82. The argument in that ayah is not talking about the existence of God or
> that lack of contradiction makes it automatically from God.
Right away the alarms went off in my head, as this is essentially an
admission that Mr. Mahdi does not know what the original point is. Let
us take yet another look.
The basic structure of the verse is:
*If it is from other than Allah, it would have many errors.*
This can be written [~A --> E] and implies [~E --> A]. In a previous
post Mr. Mahdi mocked Mr. Gulenoglu's capability in logic, and did so
in a way that implied that he [Mahdi] was himself versed in basic
logic. If that is in fact the case, then Mr. Mahdi would know that to
write the above is to logically imply:
*If it does not have many errors, it is from Allah.*
The point in Mr. Gulenoglu's original post was subtle, yet brilliantly
simple. There is no reason to accept this proposition. In fact, it
basically seems to be plainly false. Now, with this before us, let us
see again what Mahdi wrote:
"The argument in that ayah is not [...] that lack of contradiction
makes it automatically from God."
By writing this, Mr. Mahdi demonstrates that he has missed the point
of the original post. The above sentence can be refuted with the
following:
[(~A --> E) = (~E --> A)]
That is to say that stating that "if it were from other than Allah, it
would have many errors" is logically equivalent to stating that "an
absence of errors implies it is in fact from Allah." So, if one is
false, the other is false. If Mahdi is disputing the claim that a lack
of errors points to Allah, then he is (without knowing it) also
disputing the claim made in Soorat an-Nisa 4:82.
> The argument is that the Quran says it is from God and as a result,
> Allah protected it from corruption and mistakes.
This is fine and dandy, but the author who wrote that specific aya
made a bit of a blunder, as his logical construction implies something
that seems to be false.
> If the Quran claims to be error-free and you find an
> error in it, that refutes the claim of the Quran and the validity of Islam.
Not in the least my friend. I happen to have only a minor
understanding of Mr. Gulenoglu's argument in its more recent
incarnation, but I think he made a small error in assuming what you
have assumed above. Let us noted again the basic logical structure of
Soorat an-Nisa 4:82...
(~A --> E)
Now, if you find "E," does this imply "~A"?
In other words, in light of this verse, if you find "many errors" in
the Qur'an, does it prove that it is from other than Allah? No, it
does not, as that would be a case of affirming the consequent. So, in
light of the logical structure of the aya from Soorat an-Nisa, we do
not have any such challenge as Mahdi has mentioned above. Maybe this
challenge appears elsewhere in the Qur'an, but it does not appear in
the 85th aya of Soorat an-Nisa. So in conclusion, I think that I am
justified in continuing to believe that Mr. Mahdi does not understand
the original argument about the problematic logical structure in this
verse from the Qur'an; his own post testifies to such.
-Denis Giron
Denis Giron
> ...
This is a response to Dr. Saifullaah's post, which has been archived
at:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=a48t2a%246in%241%40samba.rahul.net
Again, in my embarrassment, I apologize to Dr. Saifullah for not yet
responding to his powerful points in the Midrash thread, yet still
chyming in elsewhere. At the moment, I am only typing posts that I can
churn out on low brain wattage, if you know what I mean. :)
> The argument here is that a word can be treated as abstract logical
> terms.
This is understood. This is a point that was raised by an article on
your wondeful website quite a while ago. However, this has nothing to
do with the argument that I have been putting forth. The problem is
that the Qur'an states "if it were from other than Allaah, you would
find X." I'm paraphrasing here, but the point is still the same: no
matter what "X" is, why should we assume a lack of X implies divine
authorship? This is the question I have asked you, and you have yet to
answer.
> What we can do is to consider "ikhtilaafan" as a word and not consider its
> meaning. Then we can start counting the number of occurances of
> "ikhtilaafan" in the Qur'an and see whether it occurs many times or simply
> once. As I have already said that this word occurs in the Qur'an only
> once. Therefore, had the Qur'an been from any other than Allah, the
> logician would surely have found therein many "ikhtilaafan". This is one
> way to look at this issue.
With a rather large sigh, I must point out that this is well
understood, and was dealt with in my first contribution to this
thread, which has been archived here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=a3fmt3%244k2%241%40samba.rahul.net
Why does a single instance of a string of Arabic letters that spell
"ikhtilaafan" imply that the Qur'an is from a divine source? This is
the question. You yourself noted that had the Qur'an been from any
other than Allah, the logician would surely have found therein many
"ikhtilaafan". If that is the case, you get:
(~A --> I)
"~A" stands for "if it were from other than Allaah."
"I" stands for "you would find many ikhtilaafan."
The above is logically equivalent to:
(~I --> A)
However, there is no reason to believe such. You have presented no
reason to believe such. Furthermore, the verse (as so many Muslims
have pointed out) is presented in what seems like the form of a
challenge. If I did consider the Qur'an, and found many instance of
the word "ikhtilaafan," would this prove that the Qur'an is in fact
from a source other than Allah? If we're going by the logical
structure of the 85th aya from Soorat an-Nisa, the answer would be a
powerful no. The reason can be seen in the following:
[assume, for the sake of argument, that we live in a perverse parallel
universe where the Qur'an is filled with errors, and has many
instances of the word "ikhtilaafan" litter its pages]
(1) If the Qur'an was from other than Allah,
there would be many ikhtilaafan.
(2) There are many ikhtilaafan.
----------------------------------------
(3) the Qur'an is from other than Allah.
This could be written as:
A --> B
B
-------
A
Affirming the consequent. There is no challenge.
Now, we move back to the issue of the aya being logically equivalent
to a lack of "ikhtilaafan" implying divine authorship. Dr. Saifullah
was aksed to justify this proposition, and he resorted to special
pleading. When asked to justify this special pleading, he had the
following to offer:
> The verse clearly talks about a book called the Qur'an revealed some
> 1400 years ago. It does not say anything about the phone directory.
This is perfectly clear. The question now is *WHY* do we accept the
special pleading for the Qur'an?
> The phone directory itself does not claim that it is 100% correct.
This is an irrelevant point. If I make a phone directory that claims
to be 100% correct, will this change the issue? No, it will not. The
issue is that there is no reason to assume that a lack of errors (or
only a single instance of the word "ikhtilaafan") in a work implies
divine authorship.
I'm snipping all the points about how many times Adam, Jesus, "alone,"
et cetera, appear in the Qur'an. While these points made for
interesting trivia, they were wholly irrelevant to the discussion at
hand. Those who are interested can read them in Dr. Saifullah's post
(link above). The issue of the number of instances of "waheedan" and
"ikhtilaafan" appearing in the Qur'an are also touched on by Dr.
Saifullah here:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/Internal/contexinter.html
The question, however, is not about fascinating numerological
parallels in the Qur'an. Rather, the question is about the logical
structure of the 85th aya of Soorat an-Nisa. Why does "ikhtilaafan
katheeran" imply that the text is from a divine source? The verse from
Soorat an-Nisa implies such, but there is no reason to accept such a
claim (in fact it is demonstratably false!).
> To look for logic in the book is to look, not to the meanings of the
> words, but to treat them as abstract logical terms.
That is fine. This is firmly understood, but this does not escape the
problematic nature of the verse from the 4th chapter of the Qur'an,
nor does it justify your special pleading for the Qur'an.
> This is precisely what was done earlier with couple of examples
> to clarify the use of "ikhtilaafan" as a word without considering
> the meaning and with more examples in this post to expound the
> earlier one. One really wonders if Dajjal understands what has
> been said.
I understand what you are saying perfectly well. The problem is that
you do not understand what I have been putting forth. The verse
basically says:
~P --> Q
This is equivalent to saying:
~Q --> P
"P" is obviously "the Qur'an was authored by Allaah." No, no matter
what you decide "Q" should stand for, you have yet to explain why we
should believe that "~Q" implies "P."
> We are talking about the Qur'an and
> he compares a telephone directory with it!
What? Let's get something straight here: you were the first to make
mention of a phone directory when on Feb. 3, you wrote:
"So, it talks about a specific book called Qur'an, not a telephone
directory."
[ http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=a3j8j2%24pcs%241%40samba.rahul.net
]
My response was to merely ask why we should accept your special
pleading on behalf of the Qur'an and not do such for a phone directory
or any other text? You have yet to answer. You're the one who
introduced (and subsequently discredited) the phone directory, thus
now it is on you to justify your special pleading for the Qur'an.
The claim is, at its most basic level:
"If this text was from other than God, it would have many X."
It can be demonstrated that this is false. The statement "if there is
not many X, this text is from God" is logically equivalent, and can be
demonstrated to be false by having a man write a text that does not
have many X. You're claiming that the Qur'an is a special case. The
question is why?
-Denis Giron
Denis Giron
>...
This is a reply to Viqar Ahmed's post, which has been archived here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=a4e335%2484r%241%40samba.rahul.net
> Not only that it is a bad argument, it is also entirely without basis.
> What 4:82 says is that if the Qur'an was from other than Allah(SWT),
> there would be many errors in it.
>
> There is no way to deduce Mr. Gulenlioglu's syllogism from what the Qur'an
> says.
Hmmm... Well, I have been discussing it with Mr. Gulenoglu over email,
and I think he might have some new stuff ot offer. With regards to the
version that appeared in the post that you were responding to, yes, I
would agree there are problems with Mr. Gulenoglu's argument. Namely,
he has called a contingent statement a "contradiction," and he has
treated "existence" as a predicate. More importantly, one cannot shift
from the verse in an-Nisa to the syllogism he had constructed without
some problems. That being conceded, I think Mr. Gulenoglu has written
a follow-up post (which I didn't take a careful look at) that attempts
to refine his argument, and I am sure he has a lot more to say on this
issue.
> Furthermore, he has not proved that there is any error in 4:82. End of
> story.
Well again, we have to be clear on what is meant by "error." I
personally think it has been shown that 4:82 (elsewhere in this thread
I erroneously called it the "85th aya" and "4:85") contains a
proposition that can be demonstrated as being false. There has been no
real argument to the contrary from the Muslim side.
I think that traditional Muslim theology (and Monotheist
[Judeo-Christian-Islamic] theology in general) holds that God [Allaah]
would not produce a text that had a false proposition. The Qur'an
seems to contain a false proposition, thus it does not meet this
standard. However, if the standard is set by 4:82 alone, the Qur'an
can still be from Allaah, as that verse leaves open the possibility of
Allaah writing a text that contains many errors.
-Denis Giron
Denis Giron
> greetings denis,
Greetings Tamer! For those who use news readers that do not tell you
what post is being replied to, it should be noted that this is a
response to a post by Tamer that has been archived at:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=a45gvs%24fvb%241%40samba.rahul.net
To Tamer, I have no problem with you snipping parts of my argument.
For the sake of brevity I have snipped much of your argument as well.
Because of this, readers may want to read Tamer's post to understand
the context of certain arguments.
Before I begin, let me note that Mete Gulenoglu offered a rather
capable response, consisting mainly of slightly abrasive rhetorical
questions (but relevant questions none the less!) I recommend others
read Mr. Gulenoglu's response to Tamer, which can be found at:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=a4aa9p%24etb%241%40samba.rahul.net
> 4)NO MORE REVELATION FROM THE GOD
> why do you think we ignore number four and if we dont how can we
> refute it?
Well, this isn't a claim that can really be checked. All of the
hypothetical texts say "this is the word of God" in the first line,
but we're not including that in our list of true statements. We're
only seeing if we can find declarative statements that are
demonstratably false. Claims about it being from God are not
checkable, thus not considered in the way I was checking for errors.
My point was only to show that it is possible to write a book that is
free of errors (thus a lack of errors does not imply a divine source,
thus Soorat an-Nisa has a verse that is rather problematic). As for
your question about refuting it, I don't think this is a falsifiable
claim. If the other texts came after, and the believers make equally
strong cases for them being from God, do we discredit four? If not, on
what grounds would we admit that four is false? If there are no such
grounds, you have put forth a tautology, and thus it is not worth
discussing.
> quran claims it is from God what makes you to reject
> to call quran book from God? you did not reject to call me as tamer?
Well, I was nice enough not to demand proof that your name was "Tamer"
(what would be the point?). However, if I doubted that was your real
name, the burden of proof would be on you to prove it was if you
claimed it was. The same is with the Qur'an: mere doubt does not shift
the burden of proof. It is simply doubt until further evidence is
presented.
> c-) as a last point if i find any book before quran which claims to
> be from Creator and his last revelation to people then i would take
> that book as from Creator(since book says so ) but try to find error
> in it to dismiss its claim.
But, as I tried to show in the analogy of the books of Vishnu and
Zeus, it is impossible to really prove that a religious text has an
error. Once a verse is treated as not being literal, you open the
flood gates for metaphor at any point needed. Religious texts are very
fluid in that regard, hence the continued support of believers even
after they have been presented with lists of alleged contradictions.
> what would it be a good error? himmmm if in one verse it
> says 2 thousand bathrooms but other verse says 4 thousand
> bathrooms i think there is an error here
Well, let's explore this. I'm getting a revelation from the divine...
here is the first five verses of my book, which is from a divine
source:
(1) My house has four thousand bathrooms.
(2) God made the earth nice and flat so you wont fall off.
(3) The flames are beneath the flat part on which you stand.
(4) My house has two thousand bathrooms.
(5) Drink carrot juice every Wednesday, thus sayeth the Lord.
So, any errors in my first five verses? No, none that I see. Verse
four does not contradict verse one. If you have three cars, and I say
"do you have a car," saying "I have a car" is not a lie. I have four
thousand bathrooms, and 2,000 of the bathrooms I have are within that
set. What about the part about earth being flat? That's referring to
plate techtonics, as the plates are flat, which is what is why the
next verse implies the magma under those plates. When I say "earth,"
this also means soil, and God made the soil so that its molecular
bonds fit together in away that when it is compacted, it is nice and
flat and man can stand on it. No errors, and some good scientific
info!
> what makes you to disbelieve in them?what is your proof that they are
> not true?
The burden of proof is on the supporters of those texts.
I hope these short points help.
-Denis Giron
M.S.M. Saifullah
> Again, in my embarrassment, I apologize to Dr. Saifullah for not yet
> responding to his powerful points in the Midrash thread, yet still
> chyming in elsewhere. At the moment, I am only typing posts that I can
> churn out on low brain wattage, if you know what I mean. :)
Well, the posts churned on low brain wattage do not do much good. What you
put in is what comes out. You can't have a machine more than 100%
efficient!
> This is understood. This is a point that was raised by an article on
> your wondeful website quite a while ago. However, this has nothing to
> do with the argument that I have been putting forth. The problem is
> that the Qur'an states "if it were from other than Allaah, you would
> find X." I'm paraphrasing here, but the point is still the same: no
> matter what "X" is, why should we assume a lack of X implies divine
> authorship? This is the question I have asked you, and you have yet to
> answer.
The implication of the first point is that we have been talking about
different things and on different planes.
As for the second issue, the "X" is well-defined with respect to the book
called the Qur'an. "X" is ikhtilaafan katheeran, meaning many
discrepancies. The issue now is that why should we assume that a lack of
"many discrepancies" implies divine authorship of the Qur'an. Well, if the
Qur'an had mistakes you would be the first to reject it as the scores of
agnostics and atheists have done for the Bible. They simply put the
presence of various discrepancies in the Bible as one of the main points
to reject it.
I find the above argument from Dajjal to be rather strange. It is in the
humans to reject an instrument which is poorly manufactured with lots of
defects. What about a book?
> Why does a single instance of a string of Arabic letters that spell
> "ikhtilaafan" imply that the Qur'an is from a divine source? This is
> the question. You yourself noted that had the Qur'an been from any
> other than Allah, the logician would surely have found therein many
> "ikhtilaafan". If that is the case, you get:
Well, the single instance of a string of Arabic letters that spell
"ikhtilaafan" does not imply that the Qur'an is from a divine source. It
has be shown that it uses a particular type of logic consistently, i.e.,
the one that has been discussed of using words as abstract logical
terms and then verifying it using the statement made by the book.
Further I never claimed that the single instance of a string of Arabic
letters that spell "ikhtilaafan" does imply that the Qur'an is from a
divine source. Instead what I have shown is the pattern of occurrance
using words as abstract logical terms is consistent when checked with
other statements in the Qur'an. I think we can also add another example
here which I managed to verify a few days ago. The interesting thing about
the Qur'anic discourse is that of dialogue, i.e., "if they say such and
such then tell them such and such."
"And no question do they bring to thee but We reveal to thee the truth and
the best explanation (thereof)." [25:33]
In the Qur'an the word for the phrase 'they said' is "Qaalu". The replies
that Allah gives to the reader of the Qur'an are commands to
'Say!' and in Arabic it is "Qul". "Qaalu" and "Qul" occurs in the Qur'an
332 times. In other words, for everything they say, Allah says such and
such; no query is left unanswered. This was pointed out quite a few years
ago by Gary Miller in one of his talks.
> However, there is no reason to believe such. You have presented no
> reason to believe such. Furthermore, the verse (as so many Muslims
> have pointed out) is presented in what seems like the form of a
> challenge. If I did consider the Qur'an, and found many instance of
> the word "ikhtilaafan," would this prove that the Qur'an is in fact
> from a source other than Allah? If we're going by the logical
> structure of the 85th aya from Soorat an-Nisa, the answer would be a
> powerful no. The reason can be seen in the following:
The problem with you is that you have not really understood our line of
argumentation. We can deal with ikhtilaafan as an abstract term or as a
word meaning discrepancy. We have dealt with ikhtilaafan as an abstract
term to make a point. And to confirm it more of such pattern was supplied.
Just my one instance of showing the lack of occurance of many
"ikhtilaafan" is not supposed to prove anything. It could be a simple
fluke! To prove a point what is required is consistency.
Now if Dajjal does not want to believe that the word "ikhtilaafan" occurs
only once in the Qur'an he is welcome to check it. I have double-checked
this myself.
<snip>
> Now, we move back to the issue of the aya being logically equivalent
> to a lack of "ikhtilaafan" implying divine authorship. Dr. Saifullah
> was aksed to justify this proposition, and he resorted to special
> pleading. When asked to justify this special pleading, he had the
> following to offer:
>
> > The verse clearly talks about a book called the Qur'an revealed some
> > 1400 years ago. It does not say anything about the phone directory.
>
> This is perfectly clear. The question now is *WHY* do we accept the
> special pleading for the Qur'an?
The person committing special pleading is claiming that he is exempt from
certain principles or standards yet he provides no good reason for his
exemption. Dajjal says that I am applying a case of special pleading to
the Qur'an especially in the argument related to the issue of
"ikhtilaafan". Firstly, I never concluded from one instance of
"ikhtilaafan" when used as an abstract logical term that the Qur'an is
indeed from Allah. Rather it was Dajjal who implied that I claimed such
and such with no evidence. Secondly, to show that the instance of such
logic is not confined to the issue of "ikhtilaafan". It was shown that in
many cases such a consistency is observed. In other words, "ikhtilaafan"
was not subjected to a special or biased treatment. Thirdly, the verse
deals with a specific book, the Qur'an. We evalute material what it
actually claims of and there is no logical fallacy in it. By the way of
example, if the British Rail boast of 100% ontime arrival on GNER route,
we would check this claim by checking the arrival of the trains in some
stations at random or otherwise on GNER route. We would not check this
claim on some other route such as Great Western! These three points are
good enough to refute the claims of special pleading of the Qur'an.
> The question, however, is not about fascinating numerological
> parallels in the Qur'an. Rather, the question is about the logical
> structure of the 85th aya of Soorat an-Nisa. Why does "ikhtilaafan
> katheeran" imply that the text is from a divine source? The verse from
> Soorat an-Nisa implies such, but there is no reason to accept such a
> claim (in fact it is demonstratably false!).
Did we *ever* say that "ikhtilaafan katheeran" imply that the text is from
a divine source? Or Dajjal is putting words in our mouth. Dajjal has
demonstrated nothing!
By the way, I do research on day to day basis and we do understand that an
experiment is to be reproducible and consistent to draw certain
conclusions. We do not do one off experiments and claim that electrons in
artificial molecules have no spin!
<rest snipped for unnecessary repetitiveness>
Wassalam
Saifullah
Mr Mahdi
Abdul-Khinzeer Kalbullah" is being referred to what he called himself. Now
people like me and Saifullah have called him by what he called himself. For
many months, all the moderators, including Catherine Hampton, have allowed
this. Now for some reason, out of the blue, Catherine has rejected my post and
told me to mind my manners all because I referred to Denis Giron by what he
called himself -- Dajjal. On the same day my post was reject, Catherine
approved of a post from Saifullah where he called Denis Giron "Dajjal." I
refuse to be bullied by outright double-standards. I am submitting my post as
is because it is not fair to allow the use of a person's nickname HE ASSIGNED
HIMSELF for many months, by several different people to all of a sudden not
only a particular person to not use it. My intentions was not to insult
anyone, just like when other people call Denis Giron by the name he called
himself, their intentions were not to insult him as well.)
As-salaamu `ala man ittaba`a al-huda,
>When I have time (by this week end, I promise), I'm going to sit down
>and respond to the other threads.
On a serious note, why do you treat yourself as some "celebrity?" "When I have
time..."; so what if you have time or not? It is us that are wasting our time
responding to faulty and weak anti-Muslim polemics. What are your academic
credentials? Are you trying your best to get your name in a website like
"Islamic Awareness" or in some magazine or paper? Why do you think that
debating or chatting with you is a "privelege" and that your time is so
precious that you had to set it aside to "respond" to us? I guess you forget
about the expose of you I did a few years ago! Need I say more?
LOL.
>Regarding that original point, Mr. Mahdi does not understand
>the argument, as was very clear in what he wrote.
In an attempt to mock his opponents and portray them as intellectual
incompatible and incompetent, Dajjal `Abdul-Khinzeer likes parrot phrases he
hears from people (like me) such as "so and so doesn't understand the
argument..." The argument of 4:82 is something Dajjal `Abdul-Khinzeer doesn't
understand himself and he then goes on to try to make the ayah a syllogism of
his liking:
>This can be written [~A --> E] and implies [~E --> A]. In a previous
>post Mr. Mahdi mocked Mr. Gulenoglu's capability in logic, and did so
>in a way that implied that he [Mahdi] was himself versed in basic
>logic.
Aside from the usual attempt of Dajjal `Abdul-Khinzeer to "impress" the people
with his new-found knowledge in things (this time his use of syllogisms and
before his superfluous and pretentious display of transliterating Arabic and
Hebrew), he is trying to make something that is not a syllogism into a
syllogism (of his own liking).
First, let's understand this:
"The argument in 4:82 is that the Quran claims to be from God tries to prove
this by insisting that God has protected the Quran from contradictions and
mistakes. If you find any error or contradiction in the Quran, then you have
refuted the claim that the Quran is from God."
Now this is the argument of 4:82. Mr. Dajjal `Abdul-Khinzeer does not like the
fact that this is the argument, so he of course had to obfuscate the issue by
insisting the ayah contains a syllogism, but a faulty one:
>That is to say that stating that "if it were from other than Allah, it
>would have many errors" is logically equivalent to stating that "an
>absence of errors implies it is in fact from Allah."
We know that Dajjal has a history of rehashing a refuted argument over and over
again, hoping one day that someone out there will buy into it. Like I keep
saying, the argument in 4:82 is not a syllogism and even if it was, whose
version of syllogism will you use? The one taught in logic or the faulty one
used by Dajjal and his new friend "logical proof?"
Another inherent fallacy in logic the inability to agree with technique to use
and how when it comes to proving, refuting or even understanding an argument!
If one guy insist that he is allowed to use a syllogism that the other doesn't
agree with, who is more right???
See, why are we caught up in whose version of syllogism is more right? If both
are right, then how can we come to a conclusion that is right because both
syllogisms end up giving different conclusions!
To reiterate, the argument in 4:82 is not a syllogism, faulty or valid, nor any
attempt by Dajjal or whoever can make it one.
The only reason why I am responding to the anti-Islam polemics of Dajjal
`Abdul-Khinzeer is to make myself clearer than I already am. The issue for us
Muslims who must fend off any attempt of trying to discredit Islam whether or
not we should use our time wisely in responding to *any* attack against our
deen. I usually don't respond to Dajjal because not only his arguments are
absurd and faulty but I know his agenda and who he is. I am not the one trying
to get my name and be famous, but if we Muslims keep responding to *any*
anti-Muslim polemist, then we can make them "famous", something they try so
hard to be.
Mahdi Muhammad
Mahdi Muhammad
Denis Giron
> ...
This thread about logic seems to be going in circles, mainly because
of the different sides working from completely different stances.
Unfortunately this thread suffers due to the fact that some
participants lack the necessary understanding of basic logic needed to
take part. This is my response to posts by Asim Mehmood, Dr.
Saifullah, and Mr. Mahdi, respectively.
My first reply will be to Asim Mehmood's post, which can be found
archived here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=a4qe0r%24m7j%241%40samba.rahul.net
> I have been reading the discussion on 4:82, and it is obvious that the
> meaning of the verse is lost. Instead of pursuing the Quran from a
> literary perspective, without any flavour of literary appreciation,
> our critics are defining the verse from a purely logical point of
> view. It is similar to those who claim that Dhul Qarnayn actually saw
> the sun set in the lake.
I have to strongly disagree. The issue of Dhul-Qarnayn in Soorat
al-Kahf is more like the issue in the Bible where Jesus is taken to a
mountain and shown all the kingdoms of the world. A case can be made
that this is probably a metaphore of some sort, and the discussion is
reduced to a stale mate.
That happens because each side is bringing two different
interpretations to the table, working from different paradigms.
However, in the issue of logic and the verse from Soorat an-Nisa we
are demonstrating what the text actually says. The argument has been
very clear, and no one has offered any serious objections to date.
> If anyone takes any note of the discussion about it, the majority of the
> criticism revolves around syllogisms and the like. They do not
> understand the flexibility of language, especially when it comes to
> literary masterpieces.
No, I'm actually quite in agreement with you on this with regard to
other issues. For example, I firmly believe there are "contradictions"
in the Bible, but as of late I have made it a habit to put
"contradictions" in quotation marks to hint at the fact that a lot of
this has to do with a difference in approach and interpretation. What
a religious text means to a believer is something completely different
>from what the non-believer sees.
While that is all conceded, the issue here is that there is a real
problem with the logical structure of the verse at the center of this
discussion. Indeed, Muslims have a particular understanding of the
verse, but as will be demonstrated, that understanding is betrayed by
the text itself! For example, you wrote:
> The meaning of the verse does NOT imply that, because the Quran has no
> erros, it is a book of God.
The reality is that you are absolutely wrong, and the fact is that the
verse implies *EXACTLY* that. I have offered the following logical
proposition earlier:
[(~A --> E) = (~E --> A)]
This is not something that is up for debate. This is an analytic
proposition that holds *a priori*. You youself lined the verse up as
saying "Had it been from other than God, they would have found therein
much discrepancy." That implies that if there is not "much
discrepancy," the book is not "from other than God" (i.e. it is from
God/Allah).
Afterwards, you rewrote the verse as follows:
"Because the Quran is the book of God, it contains no errors, because
if it wasn't from God and was from humans, it would contain MANY, an
ABUNDANCE (katheeran) of discrepancies, errors, and so on
(ikhtilaafan)."
This doesn't escape the problem in any sense, as the argument is still
there. You yourself make the unfounded claim that "if it wasn't from
God and was from humans, it would contain MANY, an ABUNDANCE
(katheeran) of discrepancies, errors[.]" Let's break down your
statement.
G - "It is from God."
H - "It is from humans."
E - "It has errors."
The reconstruction of the verse that you offered makes the following
statement:
(~G & H) --> E
And this logically implies:
~E --> ~(~G & H)
Which means "if it does not have errors, it is not the case that this
work is not from God and from humans." I see no reason to accept the
proposition that a lack of errors implies divine authorship or
discredits human authorship. Your proposition can be demonstrated to
be false. Interestingly, your proposition also implies:
~E --> (G v ~H)
Which means "if it does not have errors, it is from God or not
humans." This leaves open the possibility that it is from neither God
nor humans (some other entity wrote it). If you have ~G, you get ~H,
and thus "~G & ~H."
Also, through the rule of inference known as "implication," we can
also derive [E v (G v ~H)], which states: "It has errors or it is from
God, or it is not from humans." Amazingly, if we are in a world where
all three are true, the sentence is still true! In other words, your
sentence actually implies that it is possible for the Qur'an to both
be from Allah and have errors (which sort of goes against traditional
Judeo-Christian-Islamic theology).
Most interesting of all, uor argument implies that it is possible for
the Qur'an to be both from humans and God. Suppose the Qur'an is both
free of error and written by humans. You would get:
(1) (~G & H) --> E [given]
(2) ~E [given]
(3) H [given]
(4) ~E --> ~(~G & H) [contraposition from 1]
(5) ~(~G & H) [modus ponens from 2 & 4]
(6) G v ~H [DeMorgan's theorem from 5]
(7) ~~H [double negation from 3]
(8) G [disjunctive syllogism from 6 & 7]
-----------------------------------------
Conclusion: G & H [conjunction from 3 & 8]
The conclusion is the very strange "the Qur'an is from God and the
Qur'an is from humans." Don't blame me for this, as it was your
argument that allows such a possibility. Hey, maybe it is possible!
Maybe Soorat al-Hijr 15:28-38 is from Allah, while Soorat Sad 38:71-81
is from humans, or maybe the other way around (or maybe they're both
>from from humans, or both from Allah, though I wonder...). I'm not
taking a position on those verses; I'm just giving an analogy!
In short, the problem is with the way the verse is structured. If
you're going to dispute my claims, show where I have gone wrong with
my simple logic.
[------ NEXT RESPONSE ------]
Now I'd like to respond to Dr. Saifullah's post from February 15th,
which can be found here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=a4jv4j%24e2e%241%40samba.rahul.net
> Well, the posts churned on low brain wattage do not do much good. What you
> put in is what comes out.
LOL! You're probably right. However, what I was saying had to do with
my own behavior in this forum. I put forth a post in the midrash
thread, you responded, and I have yet to answer. I think such behavior
is rather poor, but I tend to do it a lot. That was what motivated my
apology.
As for my low brain wattage, this has to do with research. I have not
responded to the Midrash/Qur'an thread because I would like to check
some sources before I do, and as of yet I have not cracked a single
book. In this thread, however, I don't have to do any work as I can
just churn out responses off the top of my head.
> The issue now is that why should we assume that a lack of
> "many discrepancies" implies divine authorship of the Qur'an.
> Well, if the Qur'an had mistakes you would be the first to
> reject it as the scores of agnostics and atheists have done
> for the Bible.
This simply does not answer the question. Just because atheists are
willing to attack a book based on it containing alleged errors does
not mean a lack of errors implies divine authorship. That is
fallacious. Indeed, some people claim there are errors in the Bible,
and some claim there are errors in the Qur'an. Such people reject the
text on the assumption that "if it has errors, it is not from God."
Let's take a look at your reasoning with the following syllogism
(starting with that premise):
If the Qur'an has errors, it is not from Allah.
The Qur'an does not have errors.
---------------------------------
It is from Allah.
This is an invalid argument, where you fallaciously deny the
antecedent. Above you asked the question "why should we assume that a
lack of 'many discrepancies' implies divine authorship of the
Qur'an[?]" and then responded that if it did have "many discrepancies"
the kuffaar would reject it. This doesn't answer the question you
yourself posed. It is irrelevant what the non-believers think about
the text. Their stance has nothing to do with the question about why a
lack of errors implies divine authorship.
Furthermore, to bring in the issue of Atheists and Agnostics rejecting
a text because of alleged errors is to demonstrate that you don't
understand what the verse is saying. The non-believer starts from the
premise "if the Qur'an has errors, Allah didn't write it," but Soorat
an-Nisa' 4:82 does not hold to such logic. In fact, the verse implies
that it is possible for the Qur'an to be both from Allah and have
errors. "What is this cracy kid talking about?" you may be
wondering... Well, first, let us remember that the verse has the
following structure:
~A --> E
This is equivalent to saying:
A v E
Which means "it is from Allah or it has errors." If you don't believe
me, check the following truth table at:
http://www.geocities.com/combatart/annisalogic.html
So, we get:
[(~A --> E) = (A v E)]
This is indisputable. Now, if the text was both from Allah, and had
errors, "A v E" would still be true, as would "~A --> E," thus the
verse does not claim errors means it is not from God (thus there is no
challenge). However, what it does imply is that if it is not from
Allah, it has to have errors (there is no reason to assume such; this
proposition is false), or if it does not have errors it is from Allah
(you have yet to give a single reason why we should assume such).
> I find the above argument from Dajjal to be rather strange. It is in the
> humans to reject an instrument which is poorly manufactured with lots of
> defects. What about a book?
Yes, that is the human tendency to reject a book with many errors.
That doesn't matter. The question is still why a lack of errors would
mean the text is divine. If there were no errors in the Baghavad Gita,
would that mean it was really the "Song of the Lord"? Of course not.
> Well, the single instance of a string of Arabic letters that spell
> "ikhtilaafan" does not imply that the Qur'an is from a divine source.
Yes, both Mr. Gulenoglu and I were well aware of this, and even
demonstrated such. We were merely waiting for you to admit as much.
So, with this in mind, this means that the whole issue of the number
of times "ikhtilaafan" appears in the Qur'an was irrelevant to the
issue of the logical implication of the verse.
> Further I never claimed that the single instance of a string of Arabic
> letters that spell "ikhtilaafan" does imply that the Qur'an is from a
> divine source.
We know that, but the issue of the thread has always been that Soorat
an-Nisa 4:82 states that if it the Qur'an were not from Allah you
would find "ikhtilaafan katheeran." This implies that a lack of
"ikhtilaafan katheeran" means it is in fact from Allah, and there is
no reason to believe such. Mr. Gulenoglu was working within the
understanding that "ikhtilaafan katheeran" meant "many errors" or
"much discrepancy." You were the one who introduced the stuff about
treating "ikhtilaafan" as a simple string of Arabic letters, which did
not escape the issue at all (and in fact can be seen as a red
herring).
> The problem with you is that you have not really understood our line of
> argumentation. We can deal with ikhtilaafan as an abstract term or as a
> word meaning discrepancy.
The problem is that you fail to see the logical problem with the verse
that exists no matter how you treat "ikhtilaafan." The argument of
this thread has always been on the issue of the logical structure of
Soorat an-Nisa 4:82.
> Now if Dajjal does not want to believe that the word "ikhtilaafan" occurs
> only once in the Qur'an he is welcome to check it.
I don't doubt it. I have no reason to doubt it or even really consider
it, mainly because the issue of this thread is the same whether there
is only one instance or not.
> The person committing special pleading is claiming that he is exempt from
> certain principles or standards yet he provides no good reason for his
> exemption.
Agreed, and this is exactly what you have been doing. If I have a
phone directory (originally your analogy) that states that a lack of
errors means it was compiled by God, one can point out that there is
no reason whatsoever to assume such (as a man can write a book free of
error). The Qur'an makes the same claim, yet you have tried to render
it exempt from the same problem yet you have given no reason as to
why.
> Thirdly, the verse deals with a specific book, the Qur'an.
This is understood, and the question still remains, *WHY* does a lack
of errors in the Qur'an imply divine authorship? You have not given a
single reason.
> Did we *ever* say that "ikhtilaafan katheeran" imply that the text is from
> a divine source?
No, but the verse from Soorat an-Nisa says that a lack of "ikhtilaafan
katheeran" means it is from Allah, and the question is why.
[------ NEXT RESPONSE ------]
Finally, I would like to comment on Mr. Mahdi's post from Feb. 17th,
which has been archived here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=a4om1u%24c87%241%40samba.rahul.net
> On a serious note, why do you treat yourself as some "celebrity?"
I never claimed to be a celebrity, nor did I ever claim that it is a
privelage for others to receieve a response from me. It is my point
that people actually took the time to respond, and I take quite a long
time to acknowledge their responses, hence an apology is due from me.
> Dajjal `Abdul-Khinzeer likes parrot phrases he hears from
> people (like me) such as "so and so doesn't understand the
> argument..."
This is not so. When I wrote the words "Mr. Mahdi does not understand
the argument" back on February 14th, I did so because your own
writings demonstrated that you had not clearly grasped the issue at
hand. This was not an attempt to insult you, nor was it just written
for the sake of saying such. The discussion was about logic, and the
structure of Soorat an-Nisa 4:82, and you made claims that did not
apply to the discussion or were plainly false. The same is the case
with this post, no offense.
To demonstrate this, let it be noted that Mahdi offered the following:
"The argument in 4:82 is that the Quran claims to be from God tries to
prove this by insisting that God has protected the Quran from
contradictions and mistakes. If you find any error or contradiction
in the Quran, then you have refuted the claim that the Quran is from
God."
After which, he wrote:
> Now this is the argument of 4:82. Mr. Dajjal `Abdul-Khinzeer does
> not like the fact that this is the argument, so he of course had
> to obfuscate the issue by insisting the ayah contains a syllogism,
> but a faulty one
And now, this is why I say that you do not understand the argument of
Mr. Gulenoglu and I. First of all, I never claimed that the verse from
Soorat an-Nisa is a syllogism. It is a proposition, a declarative
statement, but surely not a syllogism. So already you have
misunderstood my argument.
More importantly, the text above is what you claim the argument is,
and this shows that you have not grasped the argument. You wrote: "If
you find any error or contradiction in the Quran, then you have
refuted the claim that the Quran is from God." This is *NOT* the claim
of Soorat an-Nisa 4:82, and this has been stated previously. I can
refute your claim by pointing out the following logical proposition:
~[(~A --> E) = (E --> ~A)]
This is not something that is up for debate. The verse states "~A -->
E," and in no way does this mean "E --> ~A". In other words, the verse
does not imply that an error or a contradiction means the text is not
>from God. You're affirming the consequent, which is a fallacy. Suppose
I found 100 contradictions in the Qur'an, the argument would go like
this:
If the Qur'an is not from Allah, it would have contradictions.
The Qur'an has contradictions.
--------------------------------
The Qur'an is not from Allah.
No, sorry, that is an invalid argument. So, the logical structure of
the verse does not make the challenge you claim it does. This is why I
conclude that you do not understand the argument at hand. I don't just
write this for the sake of insulting you Mahdi; rather I write this
because your own post testifies to such.
> Like I keep saying, the argument in 4:82 is not a syllogism and
> even if it was, whose version of syllogism will you use? The
> one taught in logic or the faulty one used by Dajjal and his new
> friend "logical proof?"
I never claimed that 4:82 is a syllogism. Back on February 10th, you
mocked Mr. Gulenoglu when you wrote:
"Not only the atheist you are responding to does not know what a
syllogism is, he doesn't even know what contradiction means."
[ http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=a45gvq%24fva%241%40samba.rahul.net
]
The quote to be derived from here is:
"[T]he atheist [...] does not know what a syllogism is[.]"
Do you know what a syllogism is? The verse from Soorat an-Nisa is not
a syllogism. You can use a syllogism to discuss it, but it itself is
not a syllogism. Furthermore, with regard to your question about
"which" syllogism we should use, here they can basically fall into
categories of valid and invalid. If you're going to dispute a
syllogism used in the thread, explain why.
> Another inherent fallacy in logic the inability to agree with
> technique to use and how when it comes to proving, refuting or
> even understanding an argument!
There are indeed issues in philosophy that are controversial because
great minds cannot come to agreement on them. However, this does not
exist in the logical propositions and valid syllogisms I have put
forth in this thread. There is no "fallacy" here.
> If one guy insist that he is allowed to use a syllogism that the
> other doesn't agree with, who is more right???
You can decide who is right by checking the syllogism. Is it valid? Is
it invalid? The rules for determining such are not something vague or
arbitrary. We have a very clear method avaliable to us. If the issue
of soundness comes up, there might be a dispute with regards to
reference, correspondence and truth, but this has nothing to do with
the argument in this thread.
-Denis Giron
http://www.geocities.com/freethoughtmecca/home.htm
Altway
news:a4e207$7us$1...@samba.rahul.net...
> I am making my argument clear AGAIN:
> 1) If Allah exists (that means the God of Islam exists and He revealed
the holy book called Quran to Prophet Muhamamd), then Quran has no errors.
> 2) I CLAIM THAT THERE IS AN ERROR IN QURAN, IN VERSE 4:82
which is it claims that
"If the Quran was from other than Allah, it would have errors",
but I ARGUE THAT THIS IS A FALSE CLAIM,
because:
assuming that Quran is from "others than Allah"
THEN it should be the case that EITHER:
a) Quran has an error or errors
OR
b) Quran has NO ERRORS
WHEREAS
the verse 4:82 claims:
assuming that Quran is from "others than Allah"
THEN it should be the case that
Quran has an error or errors
BUT
it is possible that BOTH that
Quran is from "others than Allah"
AND
Quran has NO ERRORS
SINCE the verse denies that possibility, it is in error.
Comment:-
You have failed to understand what the Quran is saying.
All perfection comes from Allah. It is integral to the concept of Allah.
He has all knowledge and this is not true of human beings
unless inspired by Allah.
> 3) Since we said in 1 that if Allah exists then Quran has no errors,
> then it follows that if there is an error in Quran then Allah doesn't
exist, and since in 2 I show an error in Quran then it follows that
Allah DOESN'T EXIST.
Comment:-
The error is your understanding.
There is no error in the Quran and Allah exists.
He is described as the fundamental Reality.
> In order to disprove my argument you have to SHOW ME THAT the
> following proposition is ANALYTICALLY FALSE:
> "Quran is from 'others than Allah' AND Quran has no errors"
Comment:-
No one can prove anything to another. They can either see or not, understand
or not.
We do not have to prove anything to you.
Nor are logical truths factual truths.
See the other post I wrote on this thread.
Altway
"Do they not meditate on the Quran? If it were from other than Allah they
would find in it many a discrepancy (inconsistencies, contradictions). And
when there comes to them a matter of security or fear they broadcast it; but
if they had referred it to the Messenger and to those in authority amongst
them, then those of them who can think would know it; but were it not for
Allah's grace upon you and His mercy you would have followed Satan, save a
few." 4:82-84
Atheist Critic:-
This does not make logical sense, because:-
(1) It assumes that no one but God can write a perfect book.
(2) I can see inconsistencies in the Quran and this verse shows one of them.
Muslim:-
(1) The verse asks whether the reader has meditated on the Quran
(rather than constructing silly arguments).
(2) The verse implies that all perfection comes from Allah.
(This would apply to any book or work.)
(3) In so far as the reader finds imperfections he has not meditated on the
Quran.
So the difference between these two kinds of arguments is that :-
The Critic relies on superficial verbal juggling which is often faulty.
The Muslim, on the other hand is required to cultivate a deeper experience
and awareness and go by that.
The Critic is an atheist and has assumed that there is no God before he
reads.
The Muslim believes in God.
Logic depends on words.
Words can be combined to make sense without referring to experiences or
reality at all. Islam is not interested in such arguments.
"Logical truths" are not "experiential truths" or "factual truths".
To illustrate consider the following logical argument:-
Statement A = "Pigs fly"
Statement B = "This logician is a fool."
If A then A or B...... ( not both A and B)
If not-A then B .....(If Pigs do not fly then This logician is a fool)
Not both A and not-A....
Not-A is true, therefore B is true.....(Pigs do not fly therefore, this
logician is a fool"
Q.E.D.
M.S.M. Saifullah
Assalamu-alaykum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:
> Muslim:-
> (1) The verse asks whether the reader has meditated on the Quran
> (rather than constructing silly arguments).
> (2) The verse implies that all perfection comes from Allah.
> (This would apply to any book or work.)
> (3) In so far as the reader finds imperfections he has not meditated on the
> Quran.
Alhamdulillah, I was about to reply around the same line of arguments. The
verse clearly says "Do they not ponder on the Qur'an?" before anything
else. So, the condition first is to ponder on the Qur'an before
constructing an argument. But this Mete guy only constructs syllogisms
which do not even match the original statement in the Qur'an. Honestly, I
am really tired of how Muslims defend/refute somebody else's argument
without even checking its validity.... and I am on a month long holiday...
Wassalam
Saifullah
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/
Mete Gulenoglu
contradictions, that proves it is from God!
and that is nonsense.
open up a TAFSIR and read what they wrote for that verse.
That verse is one of the TWO internal arguments that come directly
>from Quran to prove it is of divine origin, the other being the "no
can write like it" argument. There are scholars who use that verse to
prove Quran is of divine origin.
Example islam-qa.com:
http://65.193.50.117/index.php?ln=eng&ds=qa&lv=browse&QR=13804&dgn=2
---quote----
2 – No matter how much knowledge and understanding mankind attains,
they will still inevitably make mistakes, forget things or fall short.
If the Qur'aan were not the word of Allaah, there would be some
contradictions and shortcomings in it, as Allaah says:
"Had it been from other than Allaah, they would surely, have found
therein many a contradiction"
[al-Nisa' 4:82 – interpretation of the meaning]
But it is free from any shortcoming, error or contradiction; indeed,
all of it is wisdom, mercy and justice. Whoever thinks that there is
any contradiction in it, that is because of his diseased thinking and
mistaken understanding; if he refers to the scholars they will explain
to him what is correct and clear up the confusion for him, as Allaah
says:
---end quote----
The above is close to what you will find in a tafsir also. That quote
above is from islam-qa.com site while naming proofs for Quran's
divinity, you see it is numbered 2, that proof comes right after the
"no can write like it" argument.
Think about it, will being free from contradictions prove Quran to be
divine? WHY SHOULD IT? That argument is nonsense and you know it.
Mr Mahdi
>The verse means: don't you see the Quran? see it has no
>contradictions, that proves it is from God!
>
>and that is nonsense.
It is funny to see your desperation in trying to "refute" the Quran by brining
up an issue you yourself don't fully understand. First of all, you said that
4:82 contained a contradiction. Since it was clear that you didn't even stand
what "contradiction" meant, you then tried to make that verse into a syllogism,
but one that you insist was faulty.
Now like I keep saying, the Quran is not saying that lack of errors makes the
book from Allah or that Allah exists because the Quran lacks errors. What it
is saying that in order to refute the Quran's "claim" that it is from Allah,
one way to do that is to point out any "errors" and "contradictions" in the
Quran. Since none exist, then the claim of the Quran is truth in this case.
You can repeat your nonsensical "logic" again and again, but rehashing an
invalid argument will never make it valid or truthful. The smart thing for
Muslims to do (including me) is to ignore you because your argument lacks any
substance whatsoever and we Muslims are once again wasting our times.
Mahdi Muhammad
asimm...@yahoo.com
> divine? WHY SHOULD IT? That argument is nonsense and you know it.
Of course it is an argument and it is a valid argument. Everybody
knows the nature of the Quran and how it was revealed according to
various circumstances. Also considering the pressure to please
various groups, one would find a large amount of incoherency and
inconsistency if the Book was from a man. The book was revealed over
a twenty-three period and it is amazing this feat.
Denis Giron
> ...
This is a response to Mahdi's post from March 4th, 2002, which has
been archived at:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=a5vbej%246nf%241%40samba.rahul.net
> Now like I keep saying, the Quran is not saying that lack of errors makes the
> book from Allah or that Allah exists because the Quran lacks errors. What it
> is saying that in order to refute the Quran's "claim" that it is from Allah,
> one way to do that is to point out any "errors" and "contradictions" in the
> Quran. Since none exist, then the claim of the Quran is truth in this case.
This thread has been going in circles for quite some time. Amazingly,
Mahdi is beginning to represent what he claims Mr. Gulenoglu embodies:
the person who ignores the points of others and just repeats the same
refuted claim. The claims found in Mahdi's post were already touched
on last February 21st:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=a54p7c%24p1e%241%40samba.rahul.net
First Mahdi states that "the Quran is not saying that lack of errors
makes the book from Allah[.]" The reality, however, is that, contrary
to what Mahdi has written, this is exactly what the verse implies!
Once again, the structure is as follows:
A = The Qur'an is from Allah
(~A = The Qur'an is not from Allah, or other than Allah)
E = The Qur'an has many errors or "much discrepancy".
(~E = The Qur'an does not have many errors)
~A --> E
And (once again) the refutation of Mahdi's claim is:
[~A --> E] = [~E --> A]
In other words, to say "if it was from other than Allah, it would have
many errors" is EQUIVALENT to saying "if it does not have many errors
it is from Allah." So, the reality is that, contrary to what Mahdi has
written, the Qur'anic verse in question does in fact claim that a
"lack of errors makes the book from Allah[.]"
Furthermore, Mahdi again claims that the verse is saying that if you
find many errors you have refuted the claim that the text is from
Allah. Once again, we must point out that this is not the case by any
stretch, as you would get a syllogism that reads as follows:
(1) ~A --> E
(2) E
--------------
~A
The argument is INVALID! So, the challenge that Mahdi claims is being
put forth in the verse is not really there. It would seem that it is
Mahdi who has failed to understand the verse. In the past Mahdi mocked
Mr. Gulenoglu's understanding of logic, but it has become clear that
Mahdi himself has failed to catch the very simple points from basic
logic that are being employed.
-Denis Giron
Mete Gulenoglu
> knows the nature of the Quran and how it was revealed according to
> various circumstances. Also considering the pressure to please
> various groups, one would find a large amount of incoherency and
> inconsistency if the Book was from a man. The book was revealed over
> a twenty-three period and it is amazing this feat.
I don't see any reason to believe why a book HAVE TO have
inconsistencies if it is written in 23 years in various circumstances.
I would tend to think that maybe it would have inconsistencies but
MAYBE NOT! For this argument to be sound it must be logically
impossible that the Quran to be of human source while it is written in
23 years in various circumstances and have no inconsistencies at the
same time. You see being written in 23 years under various
circumstances and pressures and all does NOT logically necessitate
that the book must contain inconsistencies if it is of human source.
How do you plan to demonstrate that being written in 23 years under
various circumstances and pressures by a human ENTAILS that a book
MUST contain inconsistencies?
asimm...@yahoo.com
> > Of course it is an argument and it is a valid argument. Everybody
> > knows the nature of the Quran and how it was revealed according to
> > various circumstances. Also considering the pressure to please
> > various groups, one would find a large amount of incoherency and
> > inconsistency if the Book was from a man. The book was revealed over
> > a twenty-three period and it is amazing this feat.
>
> I don't see any reason to believe why a book HAVE TO have
> inconsistencies if it is written in 23 years in various circumstances.
> I would tend to think that maybe it would have inconsistencies but
> MAYBE NOT!
Well, that is your opinion and nobody is asking you to believe it.
The fact is, you started your argument by saying that this verse has a
logical fallacy. It does not.
For this argument to be sound it must be logically
> impossible that the Quran to be of human source while it is written in
> 23 years in various circumstances and have no inconsistencies at the
> same time.
That once again is the problem of your logic. It is devoid of actual
experience. Have you ever witnessed such a pehnomenon in your life?
Do you not think it unusual that such a Book is devoid of any
inconsistencies, yet Muhammad (S) was spared no expense in criticism
by his enemies? His enemies came to him with many different
questions, and approached him with many different methods, yet not
once do we find a situation where information contradicts each other.
In fact, if one analyzes deeply the Quran he will find a very
sohisticated structure.
You see being written in 23 years under various
> circumstances and pressures and all does NOT logically necessitate
> that the book must contain inconsistencies if it is of human source.
Have you ever witnessed a politician that has NOT changed his stance
in light of the varying opinions? Have you ever witnessed a human
being to not change his opinion based upon more knowledge coming to
light? Did Einstein always believe in the Theory of relativity? Did
he modify his theories through experimentation?
> How do you plan to demonstrate that being written in 23 years under
> various circumstances and pressures by a human ENTAILS that a book
> MUST contain inconsistencies?
I don't need to demonstrate it. Have you ever witnessed such a deeply
integrated Book as the Quran? Have you ever PONDERED deeply over the
Quran to understand it? Have you ever pondered deeply over the
arrangement of the Quran? Nobody is forcing youu to believe. But
that still does not negate the obvious factors. YOU HAVE NEVER
witnessed such a phenomenon and you never will.
thebit
> I don't see any reason to believe why a book HAVE TO have
> inconsistencies if it is written in 23 years in various circumstances.
Which either shows that you are happy not to listen to what is being taught
in the Qur'an. Read the verse which preceeds it. And then read the verse
which comes after it.
The nature of the revelation entails it was neigh on impossible for anyone
to write a book which would contain contradictions. The Prophet (p) was
under constant threat during the 23 years if his mission. His words were
listened to in earnest: by his followers, and by his enemies, just incase
he made an error. They accused him of copying from here and there. Someone,
in those circustances, I doubt would be able to write a book without any
errors.
> You see being written in 23 years under various
> circumstances and pressures and all does NOT logically necessitate
> that the book must contain inconsistencies if it is of human source.
You see what you need a dose of reality. Life does not conform to "Logical
necessitaties". If life followed rules of logic, it would be sterile.
Besides this, you again have missed completey what is being alluded to.
Sometimes revelation was spontaneous. It is unlikely someone who claims
revelation starts sifting through his notes, just to make sure his latest
revelation is not contradicting something previously.
> How do you plan to demonstrate that being written in 23 years under
> various circumstances and pressures by a human ENTAILS that a book
> MUST contain inconsistencies?
Depends on the nature of the circumstances. If Joe Bloggs, with all the
sophistication of modern equipment was to write a book over 23 years, he
would probably not write one with errors/contradictions. If a man who was
constantly under threat of death from his enemies, had every word of his
listened to, was not literate man, living without the luxuries of modern
life, in 7th Century Arabia, I doubt he would write a book without errors:
unless it was truely from God.
Mete Gulenoglu
> That once again is the problem of your logic. It is devoid of actual
> experience. Have you ever witnessed such a pehnomenon in your life?
> Do you not think it unusual that such a Book is devoid of any
> inconsistencies, yet Muhammad (S) was spared no expense in criticism
> by his enemies? His enemies came to him with many different
> questions, and approached him with many different methods, yet not
> once do we find a situation where information contradicts each other.
Have you ever witnessed a book produced in 23 years and having
contradictions?
You say you dont find information contradict each other, what
information you mean? All Quran has is the old tales that everyone
knew and told each other at the time, and some poetic descriptions of
the horror of day of judgement and hell and lots of mentioning of
paradise. And then some rules of conduct in daily life. What's there
to contradict with? If you take out all the repetitions the total
information in Quran will be few pages at most, telling very simple
things, and all those known by many of the people, because it was
their common culture. And even if there was any contradiction maybe
they are taken out by abrogation, it is said maybe 500 verses were
abrogated.
>
> You see being written in 23 years under various
> > circumstances and pressures and all does NOT logically necessitate
> > that the book must contain inconsistencies if it is of human source.
>
> Have you ever witnessed a politician that has NOT changed his stance
> in light of the varying opinions? Have you ever witnessed a human
> being to not change his opinion based upon more knowledge coming to
> light? Did Einstein always believe in the Theory of relativity? Did
> he modify his theories through experimentation?
What's there to change for Muhamamd? All he was repeating for 23 years
was that he is the prophet and if people don't believe him then Allah
will destroy them like in past generations, then starts telling how
Allah destroyed old cities etc. What's there to change mind about?
There are Muslims who once get taught Islam at 5 years old and until
he dies at the age of 70 he doesn't change his mind. How is that? Is
it not possible that a person stays without changing mind for 23
years?
>
> > How do you plan to demonstrate that being written in 23 years under
> > various circumstances and pressures by a human ENTAILS that a book
> > MUST contain inconsistencies?
>
> I don't need to demonstrate it. Have you ever witnessed such a deeply
> integrated Book as the Quran? Have you ever PONDERED deeply over the
> Quran to understand it?
You need to demonstrate it or that argument in Quran fails to prove
anything.
And what is there so "deeply integrated" in Quran? What's there to
"ponder" to "understand"? All it tells is:
1. tales of old cities Allah destroyed when they didnt believe in the
prophet, Muhamamd tells these to give his people the hint that if they
dont believee his prophethood, they might get in troubel as well,
thats for threat purposes, Pascal's wager in essence.
2. Tales of biblical characters, these are mentioned over and over to
give validity to the prophethood of Muhammad, giving the idea that he
is one of those prophets, and also they are told to get converts from
Christians and Jews.
3. Abundance of hell, paradise and last day talk. These are there to
get people in action, scare them to believe and obey by hell threat,
and also offer paradise to appeal to their greed and get them believe
and obey.
4. daily life rules. Muhamamd became the chief of the Madina city
state and then they were coming to him for giving judgement, Muhamamd
was making up rules when necessary, sometimes he was ablishing an old
custom with a new one, and sometimes he kept the old custom. things to
be done in pilgrimage etc are included.
so what's there to "ponder" and understand? Maybe I should sit and
count the appearance times of words like MSM Saifullah maybe I can get
some insight.
> Have you ever pondered deeply over the
> arrangement of the Quran?
> In fact, if one analyzes deeply the Quran he will find a very
> sohisticated structure.
Yes I have, it looks like they arranged it in the order of the length
of suras. There is neither a logical or a chronological structure. Not
even within suras themselves, a sura may start telling an ancient
story and then it will suddenly jump telling you something else,
mention last day, solve few problems in Muhamamd's time and go on
telling the initial story. VERY sophisticated structure!
> That once again is the problem of your logic. It is devoid of actual
> experience. Have you ever witnessed such a pehnomenon in your life?
> that still does not negate the obvious factors. YOU HAVE NEVER
> witnessed such a phenomenon and you never will.
In fact your logic is devoid of experience. If we never experienced
such a phenomenon then how can you say this book is revelation?
Because you speak like you observed other books like that one others
were revelations so you speak like you speak from experience.
Mete Gulenoglu
> to write a book which would contain contradictions.
You first assume that it is a revelation then from that you come up
with that therefore it can't have been written without contradictions
and from that you prove that it is revelation? thats circular
>
> Depends on the nature of the circumstances. If Joe Bloggs, with all the
> sophistication of modern equipment was to write a book over 23 years, he
> would probably not write one with errors/contradictions. If a man who was
> constantly under threat of death from his enemies, had every word of his
> listened to, was not literate man, living without the luxuries of modern
> life, in 7th Century Arabia, I doubt he would write a book without errors:
> unless it was truely from God.
1. in 23 years
What is the guarantee that if a man makes up stories of old tales and
justtell about there will be a day of judgement for 23 years have to
contradict himself?
2. constant death threat
What is the guarantee that a man will contradict himself if he is
under death threat?
3. every word listened to
Whats that got to do with contradicting self?
4. was not literate
Noone knows if he was literate or not, but still what's being
illiterate got to do with speaking without contradicting self?
5. living without the modern luxuries of life
what's the guarantee that a man will contradict self if he is amking
up something without modern luxuries of life?
6. in 7th century arabia
What's the guarantee that a man will contradict self if he is making
up something in 7th century Arabia?
asimm...@yahoo.com
> contradictions?
> You say you dont find information contradict each other, what
> information you mean? All Quran has is the old tales that everyone
> knew and told each other at the time, and some poetic descriptions of
> the horror of day of judgement and hell and lots of mentioning of
> paradise.
Then write a Book like it. Please do and then show it to the world,
and prove that our belief in this Book is wrong. Put yourself in the
light of oppression, persectuin, hijrah, and war, and than write about
how to conducts one's life in the state of marriage, peace, war, and
then discuss about divorce, the nature of love and hate and so on, and
make statements about various groups with such a poetic chram and
beauty, and bring it before us.
And then some rules of conduct in daily life. What's there
> to contradict with? If you take out all the repetitions the total
> information in Quran will be few pages at most, telling very simple
> things, and all those known by many of the people, because it was
> their common culture. And even if there was any contradiction maybe
> they are taken out by abrogation, it is said maybe 500 verses were
> abrogated.
>
Notice the words it is SAID. Nothing authoritative and no PONDERING
as the Quran itself says to do.
Is
> it not possible that a person stays without changing mind for 23
> years?
>
Produce a Book like it than.
> Yes I have, it looks like they arranged it in the order of the length
> of suras. There is neither a logical or a chronological structure. Not
> even within suras themselves, a sura may start telling an ancient
> story and then it will suddenly jump telling you something else,
> mention last day, solve few problems in Muhamamd's time and go on
> telling the initial story. VERY sophisticated structure!
>
There is a depply integrated structure. Just to give you a quick
summary of the first five:
1. Chapter 1 : the Opening of the Book, the expression of the natural
urge in man to seek guidance from the Almighty. Refuge is sought from
the path who has earned God's wrath, and the path of those that have
gone astray.
2. Chapter 2: It begins with the response to guidance. The chpater
than mainly revolves around those whome God is angry with, and the
qualities that they possessed which made them desrving of God;a anger,
the Bani Israel. The verse begin to talk about how the Muslims are
being made the bearers of the new shareeha, and discussions of the
changin of the qiblah relate directly towrads this.
3. Chapetr 3: Continues its dialogue that originates with the new
community being raised. The topic revolves around those whome have
went astray, i.e. mainly the Christians. The Quran begins its
dialogue with the excesisve speculation and extravagance of their
ideas which led to their being led astray.
4. Capter 4: The new community, i.e. ht emUslims are mainly
addressed in regards to how they must conduct themselves. The surah
originates with the statement that human society is founded upon the
principle of Belief in God, and Oneness of humanity. It talks about
the relatiopnship of kinship and immediately goes into how one relates
to those that do no0t have any kinship to take care of them i.e. the
orphans.
5. Chapter 5: It talks about how the Muslims are to conducts
themsleves with respect to the other two groups and continues to give
them directives on how to act.
This is a brief summary, and remember verses were revealed over time,
yet the structure is depply intertwined. This is a basic touch, so
yes the Quran stands on a very unshakeable ground.
>
> In fact your logic is devoid of experience. If we never experienced
> such a phenomenon then how can you say this book is revelation?
> Because you speak like you observed other books like that one others
> were revelations so you speak like you speak from experience.
The proof is simple. Produce a Book like it. Then you have proved it
wrong. Otherwise, we will continue to affirm that your charges are
totally baseless.
thebit
> > The nature of the revelation entails it was neigh on impossible for anyone
> > to write a book which would contain contradictions.
>
> You first assume that it is a revelation then from that you come up
> with that therefore it can't have been written without contradictions
> and from that you prove that it is revelation? thats circular
Yes. Like Newtons Laws, Virtual Work, Evolution, etc. All these are "circular",
but are self-evident. Likewise, God is self-evident, and a revelation from God
is self-evident.
> 1. in 23 years
> What is the guarantee that if a man makes up stories of old tales and
> justtell about there will be a day of judgement for 23 years have to
> contradict himself?
Sorry. I could not understand the question.
> 2. constant death threat
> What is the guarantee that a man will contradict himself if he is
> under death threat?
This is what happens when people live in an empty space of logic. Back in *real
life* we find that people under the merest of pressure make the biggest of
contradictions. Do you follow politics? I have just read transcrpits and
newspaper reports from a politician in the UK under intense fire about his
handling of our railways. I just counted several contradictions. Now, if our
friend Joe Bloggs is always on the defensive, always being accused of cheating,
lying, always having his life threatened, then I think intelligence shows us
that he will change his position several times. Other than that, Joe Bloggs
would have to sift through his notes to make sure he hasn't contradicted himself
in his latest revelation. Logic may show us otherwise, but logic can show us
pigs fly :-)
Btw, did you read the verse before verse 82? Did you read the verse which
followed verse 82? Did you do as they told you? Did you apply intelligence in
understand what is being told?
> 3. every word listened to
> Whats that got to do with contradicting self?
I think you should come out of your vaccum of logic. If every single word of
mine is listended to and scrutinised, I am sure you'll find that I contradict
myself on more than one occasion. Likewise for any individual. This is *real
life*. Not a dour sterile word game.
The rest of your points show us that you need to think about real life
circumstances under which Muhammad (p) claimed revelation.
gksh...@ucdavis.edu
>>> Have you ever witnessed a book produced in 23 years and having
>>> contradictions?
>> You say you dont find information contradict each other, what
>> information you mean? All Quran has is the old tales that everyone
>> knew and told each other at the time, and some poetic descriptions
>> of the horror of day of judgement and hell and lots of mentioning of
>> paradise.
> Then write a Book like it. Please do and then show it to the world,
> and prove that our belief in this Book is wrong.
It should be obvious to everyone that the "book like it" challenge
is an empty one.
Who is to decide whether a candidate book is "like the Quran"?
What are the decision criteria to be?
Clearly, a faithful muslim will never admit that any other book is
"like the Quran", even if some other book is very similar in one
more more dimensions.
For example, could a book written in a language other than Arabic
be "like the Quran"? What about a modern *dialect* of Arabic?
Could a book that has a different number of words/letter/chapters,
or that has a different distribution of words/letters/chapters, be
"like the Quran"?
How about a book that makes no claim of divine origins, or of a
different kind of divine origin--could it still be "like the Quran"?
To me, books such as the Bible and the Book of Mormon are "like
the Quran" in the most critical way: they have influenced the
religious faith of millions of people around the world. It is
easy to find other examples--for example, on the Internet, take
a look at "http://www.sacred-texts.com/index.htm".
However, no one would dream of submitting such a book as a response
to the "like the Quran" challenge, because what would be the point?
"A book like it" is a rhetorical device, not a serious challenge.
What other newsgroup is "like soc.religion.islam"?
Greg Shenaut
Mete Gulenoglu
Consider this argument.
1) If a writing style cannot be rewritten in the same way, it is
unique.
2) If a writing style is unique in that way, then it is divine.
3) My writing style cannot be written again in the same way because
only I can write the same as my linguistic, verbal, and pedagogical
background has lead me to write.
4) Therefore, my writing style is unique (1 and 3)
5) Therefore, my writing style is divine (2 and 4)
asimm...@yahoo.com
> is an empty one.
>
Can you tell me why is it an empty one? People involved in the study
of such authors as Shakespear, Milton, and the like always argue who
is a greater writer. Why is it they accept the view that one can
argue over the quality of literature and when it comes to the text of
the Quran one cannot? Do these people merely assert their opinion or
do they give proofs from the text itself which attempt to prove their
assertions. Somebody that does not appreciate literature can never
understand why Shakespeare is considered the peak of English
literature.
Why is it empty? If God has spoken, He speaks in the best manner and
in the best of ways.
> Who is to decide whether a candidate book is "like the Quran"?
> What are the decision criteria to be?
>
The work has to be produced and the challenge then made. But one must
obviously STUDY THE LANGUAGE OF THE QURAN, and the Quran itself to
even object to the argument. Do you know Arabic, i.e. classical
Arabic? Do you know pre-Islamic poetry? Then how can you assert that
teh charge is baseless? Are you a connoisseur of the language?
The people that heard it, and understood the language realized that
there was something very different to the nature of the Qura. But,
obviously one must know the language before one can even argue.
> For example, could a book written in a language other than Arabic
> be "like the Quran"? What about a modern *dialect* of Arabic?
>
There is a whole range of categoires when studying literature. The
tersenss of expression. The ability to express as clearly as can be.
The charm in which certain things are said. The descriptions used.
How the message is conveyed? How rhetoric is used? How does the work
employ irony, use double-words, play on the arguments of its
opponents, describe their characters in such few rods.
Do people of language shoot opinions out of their mouths when they
argue how well a certain person spoke?
gksh...@ucdavis.edu
>> It should be obvious to everyone that the "book like it" challenge
>> is an empty one.
>>
> Can you tell me why is it an empty one?
Well, my entire original posting gave my reasons for saying it. You
can obviously disagree, but I don't see how asking me "why", when that
is what my article explained, furthers our discourse.
> People involved in the study of such authors as Shakespear, Milton,
> and the like always argue who is a greater writer. Why is it they
> accept the view that one can argue over the quality of literature and
> when it comes to the text of the Quran one cannot?
I have no problem whatsoever discussing the Quran or any other text
using the tools of textual and historical analysis. However, it
is my opinion that the "book like it" challenge, because "like it"
is inherently subjective and because no decision criteria was given
in the text itself, is not resolvable using those tools. On the
other hand, I think that the standard academic tools might be
applied to questions such as "why did the writer(s) of the Quran make
the challenge" or "how do people who find the challenge compelling
differ psychologically or sociologically from those who do not"
and so on.
> Do these people merely assert their opinion or do they give proofs
> from the text itself which attempt to prove their assertions.
> Somebody that does not appreciate literature can never understand why
> Shakespeare is considered the peak of English literature.
If you want to argue that the Quran is the peak of Classical Arabic
literature, then go for it. However, just as we do not judge
Shakespeare on boasts and claims about himself that he made in his
writings, I don't see how in making such a challenge, the Quran's
author(s) would advance or damage that argument, unless the challenge
itself was a particularly good example of some critical aspect of
the texts.
Furthermore, and I won't go very far along this chain of logic,
Shakespeare's oeuvre is not a wonderful comparison with the Quran.
Shakespeare wrote fiction or fictionalized accounts of history--there
are many instances where his history doesn't accord with what is
known about the events of the past. Also, he is well known to be
a plagiarist, just as were most playwrights of his period--many of
his plays were basically rewrites of other plays or of well-known
stories such as those in the Gesta Romanorum. Also, there is in
fact considerable confusion about several of "his" plays regarding
who wrote them, because their style, while differing in some ways,
matches very closely that of the main body of the work attributed
to Shakespeare. Similarly, there are several versions of his plays
floating around, and no real way of knowing which are the "correct"
ones. And finally, there are many who are convinced that Shakespeare
himself didn't even write the plays, it was someone else.
In spite of all those things, though, Shakespeare is widely regarded
as having produced the best plays in the history of English. I
think that it is an interesting question to consider: if every one
of the "flaws" I mentioned above were believed to be true of the
Quran and its putative sole author, Muhammed, wouldn't it still be
judged to be the best Classical Arabic religious text ever written?
> Why is it empty? If God has spoken, He speaks in the best manner and
> in the best of ways.
Empty != bad. I think it is an empty challenge because it is
rhetorical. There is no way to tell whether it was been met or
not except for each individual's subjective judgement of it.
>> Who is to decide whether a candidate book is "like the Quran"?
>> What are the decision criteria to be?
> The work has to be produced and the challenge then made. But one
> must obviously STUDY THE LANGUAGE OF THE QURAN, and the Quran itself
> to even object to the argument. Do you know Arabic, i.e. classical
> Arabic? Do you know pre-Islamic poetry? Then how can you assert that
> the charge is baseless? Are you a connoisseur of the language?
I assert that none of that is necessary for my point to be valid.
I am not trying to decide whether any particular work meets or
fails to meet the challenge, instead I am pointing out that no
objective criteria exist regarding the challenge. If I am wrong,
if you can point to a set of criteria that objectify the challenge,
the please do so. You mention the language of the Quran, pre-Islamic
peotry, and so on--are those the basis for deciding whether the
challenge has been met? If so, why? Why are other possible criteria
excluded?
> The people that heard it, and understood the language realized that
> there was something very different to the nature of the Qura. But,
> obviously one must know the language before one can even argue.
>> For example, could a book written in a language other than Arabic
>> be "like the Quran"? What about a modern *dialect* of Arabic?
> There is a whole range of categoires when studying literature. The
> tersenss of expression. The ability to express as clearly as can be.
> The charm in which certain things are said. The descriptions used.
> How the message is conveyed? How rhetoric is used? How does the work
> employ irony, use double-words, play on the arguments of its
> opponents, describe their characters in such few rods.
It sounds to me like you have some ideas about what could be a set
of criteria to be used in adjudging an answer to the challenge.
Where did they come from and why do you think they are the best
and/or only possible criteria?
> Do people of language shoot opinions out of their mouths when they
> argue how well a certain person spoke?
But is that all the "book like it" challenge is about? About how
well the text is composed? Others might disagree and interpret
the challenge as having to do with the *content* of the text--something
that could be expressed in various ways, not just using the words
of the Quran. Still others might interpret the challenge in terms
of how the Quran affected the people of the time, or how it affects
people today. Others will interpret it numerologically, counting
letters and looking for patterns there. Others might see its
uniqueness in the language itself--how did it affect the historical
development of the Arabic languages? And so on--there are potentially
many different ways to decide the challenge, not just yours. That
is why I said that it is an empty challenge: there is no objective
way to decide whether or not it has been met.
The ultimate test is also the most trivial: the unique arrangement
of letters in the Quran can only be matched by another document
having the same arrangement of letters, but another document that
had the same arrangement of letters would in fact be a copy of the
Quran itself. QED.
Greg Shenaut
khadooj
> Only Muhammad can write LIKE Muhammad.
The probleme is no body is following what your divine unique style has in it
,
because it's empty , you should ask why ( assuming Mohammad S L A W S )
Wrote
a devine unique book is followed by 1 billion of people and no one is
following you yet
we are waiting to see how many can follow your divine unique book. Assuming
you are challenging the Qur'an and writing your divine unique book called
The Mete for example .
It is the result that count.
Abbad_Ibn_Bishr
I read some of the posts here ,as I see it seems that things going in
circular way, I didn't read each post here so I'm not sure if my
thought were addressed before,but I read what Mete wrote and he didn't
address them in his responses ,so let me throw some new stuff and hear
your comments,Mete.
>In verse 4:82 you read this:
>"..If this book wasnt from Allah, you would surely find errors in it"
>now if it said "If there was any errors in this book, then it would
>make it certain that this book isnt from Allah" then it would be fine
>because all books of Allah are error-free. but the opposite is not
>true
>which is:
>"all error-free books are from Allah"
>and this is what this verse 4:82 assumes
I have 2 points to say about this argument ,I will say one of them
here and the other when deal with argument about the existence of
Allah.
the word "iktilafan: can denotes more than one meaning like,"errors"
or
discrepancy (inconsistencies, incongruities, contradictions)".as a bro
pointed out in a post here, now let's interpret ate the verse
according to the meaning of contradictory or inconsistencies .
So, I will ask contradict with what? With other verses in the Quran?
Or with previous concepts people got from God through previous
prophets? let's take the 2nd interpretation here (in Ibn kather
interpretation he said that the prophet said ppl of the book used to
incongruities Allah's messages with each other while these books were
revealed to confirm each other ),,now the argument will go this way,
since God don't contradict himself then the quran has to agree with
the words of God in the previous scriptures and not contradict it.
God doesn't contradict himself in scriptures
The Quranic concepts about God doesn't contradict that of previous
messages he sent
----------------
Therefore the quran is from God
Now,we have to find a connection between the 2 premises ,first the
quran may be in this verse addressing ppl who had knowledge about
Allah ,and also those who had the previous scriptures ,so since Allah
in quran claim to be the same God of previous scriptures and the same
God of past prophets like Ishmaiel( the father of arab) ,and since
the theistic belief about God is that" he don't contradict himself"
,then of course the existence for example of God's attributes
contradict that which previous scriptures said about God or that which
previous prophets said about God will mean that the quran isn't from
the Allah who they knew,for example if the previous prophets said
that God is trinity and quran say he is one not trinity then it wont
be the same God of those prophets .
Now there is only one weak point as I see in this argument ,which is
what if I write a book which agree with what the previous messages
says, for example if I write statement says God is one" which agrees
with the quran ,will that mean that I got revelation from God? The
answer is "No",but what you said will be considered "from God" not as
a direct inspiration ,for example when we read a translation of the
quran we know that the translation is not by itself an inspiration but
we know it's from God by the meaning ,in this verse the quran didn't
claim itself being God's words in divine way ,but only claimed to be
"from God" which doesn't necessary refer to the divinity of the quran
,this is in the same line with quranic verses such as Al-Nisa 79
(4-79),that's why you see muslims say statement like this after every
thing they do "if I did right then it's from God and if I did wrong
then it's from myself "that's because the good deeds is that which
agree with God's words not against it.so it be considered as from God
as he is the source of it.
Anyways, my thought about the quran is that it's wrong to address it
in such a way,which I will talk about this when comment on the
argument of allah's existence.
>
> 1) If Allah exists (that means the God of Islam exists and He revealed
> the holy book called Quran to Prophet Muhamamd), then Quran has no
> errors.
I think the jump you took from an argument about the logic of a verse
in Quran to another argument about the existence of God looks very
problematic one, I believe that you have to consider the theistic
belief here which is something you did, I mean the theistic beliefs
that God doesn't make errors,I don't have problems with this but the
problem is that you are using a "conclusion" of another argument which
you didn't prove it ,keep in mind that I'm addressing the syllogism
when dealing with your first premise not the subject itself ,and I
guess you agree that if you make weak argument it doesn't necessary
means that the conclusion is wrong,..now ,what's the conclusion I'am
talking about? Its "the quran is a preserved text of it's author" and
to point the weakness out for you ,let's assume that I'm a muslim who
believe that the quranic text that we have in our hands isn't free
>from errors but I believe that these errors are human errors while the
original doesn't contain such errors, will your argument work with me
in such a case? Will your argument prove that my Islamic Allah doesn't
exist? Did you gave any proof to support your "hidden" claim that the
quran is preserved text and we have the same text that was conveyed by
Muhammed pbuh with no change at all ,and that it's a fact that cant be
refuted?, again I'm not saying that the Qura'n isn't 100% word of God
but I'm addressing your syllogism.now this argument can work with some
Muslims like (Sunni)but it can't work with those who don't have the
same belief about the Qur'an (I have no example in mind now but assume
for example like those followers of rashad khalifah).to make it more
clear for you, try to apply the same syllogism on the Allah of the
Christianity, where many Christians scholars admit that the text
isn't error free but they believe the original text to be error
free,so for an argument that work with some who claim to be Muslims
and may not work with other who claim to be Muslims too and doesn't
give any proof for its premises to work, it can be a type of
"Appealing to beliefe" fallacy or "popularity", plus "begging the
question" fallacy since it asks to believe in a conclusion that
contain a premise which isn't proved.
Now,to the 2nd premise
>
> 2) I CLAIM THAT THERE IS AN ERROR IN QURAN, IN VERSE 4:82
> which is
> it claims that
> "If the Quran was from other than Allah, it would have errors",
> but I ARGUE THAT THIS IS A FALSE CLAIM,
> because:
> assuming that Quran is from "others than Allah"
> THEN it should be the case that EITHER:
> a) Quran has an error or errors
> OR
> b) Quran has NO ERRORS
> WHEREAS
> the verse 4:82 claims:
> assuming that Quran is from "others than Allah"
> THEN it should be the case that
> Quran has an error or errors
> BUT
> it is possible that BOTH that
> Quran is from "others than Allah"
> AND
> Quran has NO ERRORS
> SINCE the verse denies that possibility, it is in error.
>
I did address this premise before ,now I will address it in another
way ,about the style of the qur'an.
Mete,is trying to say that once the quran commit a logical fallacy
then it will mean that Allah made an error ,and as theistic
presupposition about God is "God is free from errors" then Allah of
Islam doesn't exist on the ground of the theistic presupposition about
God, however I don't agree with his understanding of error , let me
argue that the use of such a way of reasoning is important ,but first
let's not forget that before we address a book by using logical
fallcies we have to understand the type of books we are talking
about,for example it will make no sense when you address book of jokes
by using the logic with every joke,or using it with book in poetry ,so
we have to know where to use them,and to know the style of book we are
addressing, now what is the style of the quran?
The qur'an claims that it's a book that address "all types of
people",not a specific category of them but all of them, now let's put
ppl in 2 simple categories which all of us agree on:
1_majority of public ppl who can be convinced easily even by A
rhetorical syllogism .
2_ argumenters and philosophers who can be convince by Absolute proof
only (while I read for philosopher that he said all people are not
free from believing the rhetorical type of reasoning ,but for the sake
of argument I will assume that they only can be convinced by absolute
proof).
Now AlQur'an uses the "alqyas al iqna'I (Persuasive syllogism) which
is ," a mode of reasoning to persuade or incite someone to take a
certain course of action: the stronger form of it like al-qiyas
al-jadali, (q.v.) is based on mashhurat (q.v.) and musallamat (q.v.);
and the weaker one like al-qiyas al-khitabi (q.v.) on maznunat (q.v.)
and maqbulat (q.v.)."
taken from:please take a look to get better understanding,
http://muslimphilosophy.com/pd/d-19.htm#72
some of this types of reasoning will work with argumenters and
philosophers who seeks absolute proofs and some of them will work
perfectly with the majority of people who can be convinced by even
rhetorical arguments ,but keep in mind that both suppose to get the
same conclusion but in different way of reasoning, for example using
different types of reasoning to prove that "God is one" will work with
all people (philosophers,others)and convince them .
Many philosophers as I understand from reading some of there writings
recognized this style of the Qur'anic speech ,that's why they were not
selective when dealing with quranic verses, since they knew that the
Qur'an used all types of reasoning, they quoted many verses from the
Qur'an to make valid argument about many issues like the existence of
God for example, even the Qur'an says that not every verse in it is
"decisive" (3:007),which means that not every verse suppose to be
addressed by only one type of reasoning .
Now back to the argument about the quranic verse, and assuming that
argument I made which deals with the verse interpretation doesn't work
,in such case the qur'n may be accused by mete by committing
"appealing to belief", means it appealed to the belief of ppl at that
time who may didn't have computers ,etc so every work they wrote had
errors and they believed that a book to be free from errors has to be
>from God not human,now such an appeal to a belief is under the
category of reasoning while it wont convince those who want absolute
logical proof but it can convince the public the majority of them,and
it's necessary to know that the use of such reasoning(appeal to
belief,appeal to emotions..etc)is very important in many cases,for
example when a president want to fight another country in order to
defend his country he will need to appeal to emotions while logical
argument that use absolute self evidences in it's premises may not
work with the public ,or work slowly and wont get the same result of
using the appealing to emotion ,and in such a case it may affect on
there situation, while another president who will reason by all
reasoning types ,who knows the necessity of things like appealing to
emotion is more smarter than that who will deal with one type of
reasoning only which contain no appeals to accepted premises which may
not be proved , let's read what an expert in logic says :
"this fallacy is actually an extremely effective persuasive device. As
many people have argued, peoples' emotions often carry much more force
than their reason. Logical argumentation is often difficult and time
consuming and it rarely has the power to spurn people to action. It is
the power of this fallacy that explains its great popularity and wide
usage. However, it is still a fallacy.
In all fairness it must be noted that the use of tactics to inspire
emotions is an important skill. Without an appeal to peoples'
emotions, it is often difficult to get them to take action or to
perform at their best. For example, no good coach presents her team
with syllogisms before the big game. Instead she inspires them with
emotional terms and attempts to "fire" them up. There is nothing
inherently wrong with this. However, it is not any acceptable form of
argumentation. As long as one is able to clearly distinguish between
what inspires emotions and what justifies a claim, one is unlikely to
fall prey to this fallacy. "
taken from:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-emotion.html
Now, if the qur'an uses the same style to convince all types of ppl
plus getting best result when dealing with majority, for me it will
reflect a good sense and not what Mete tried to claim that the author
of qur'an has bad reasoning, actually Mete can be accused of StrawMan
for his mis-presenting of the quranic position,and then judging the
"logic of Allah" in this mis-presented selective position.Keep in mind
I didn't argue for using the importance of some types of reasoning
like appealing to emotopn and beliefe but my argument is about using
both type of reasoning the logical that appeal to self evidence or
proved premises and that which know the important of using the appeal
on beliefs and emotions in the public convincing , for both of them
together work very well in convincing "all" people beside there will
be no lack in getting best result .
BTW,I wrote this messages in a hurry since I may be not able to access
the group and read again for some time, plus I had very short time
before my traveling today, so I'm sorry in case the message had much
typing errors and wasn't clear in some parts, also I only started
reading about the logical fallacious some days ago so I'm sorry in
case I made any logical flaws when dealing with syllogism since I
didn't even read half of the logical fallacious types, I hope my
understanding was right "If I did wrong then it's from myself, if it
was good it's from Allah" ;)
Salam
Abbad
asimm...@yahoo.com
>
> I have no problem whatsoever discussing the Quran or any other text
> using the tools of textual and historical analysis. However, it
> is my opinion that the "book like it" challenge, because "like it"
> is inherently subjective and because no decision criteria was given
> in the text itself, is not resolvable using those tools.
So are you saying literary criticism is entirely subjective? Are you
saying
that the academic circles are founded upon a mere sham? The Quran is
speaking to an audience that knows what literary appreciation entails,
especially in light of their environment which took pride in their
poetry and language. It is not directing this challenge to somebody
who does not have any idea what he is talking about. When Moses
challenged Pharoah, he did not challenge those who had no knowledge of
the arts of magic, he challenged those well known in the arts of
magic.
One who is well-versed in the language can appreciate the depth and
breath of a literary masterpiece when they see it. You are arguing
that the criteria is subjective. I am saying that what you assert is
based upon the fact that you do not know the language, and thus you
have no authroity to judge whether the challenge is subjective or not.
Those that did, recognized its superiority and inimitability, but
they refused to believe and to fend off the questions of why they
would not believe, they merely asserted magic or any other form. The
Quran very vividly demonstrates their psychology, and how they
continually shifted from one stance to another. It was obvious that
they were avoiding the nature of the Book through whatever excuse they
could think of.
The Quran challenged them, they recongized the superiority, they then
made excuses, and the Quran still did not let them go. It in fact
drew them farther into what they were seeking to avoid. The Quran
then brought them into a corner, where they could only seek recourse
into blankey aggression.
On the
> other hand, I think that the standard academic tools might be
> applied to questions such as "why did the writer(s) of the Quran make
> the challenge" or "how do people who find the challenge compelling
> differ psychologically or sociologically from those who do not"
> and so on.
>
The Quran is making the challenge to those that udnerstand the
language. The Arabs always boasted about their literary superiority,
and they divided the world into two classes, the Arabs and the ajamis.
The second implies the foreign-tongued. What better way to challenge
a people who considered their own superiority through the breath of
their language. Their language was religion to them, such that they
hung their greatest masterpieces on the Kaaba itself.
Jesus challeneged his people with healing, where medicine was an art,
and Moses challenged the magicines, where sorcery was the pride of
Egypt.
> If you want to argue that the Quran is the peak of Classical Arabic
> literature, then go for it. However, just as we do not judge
> Shakespeare on boasts and claims about himself that he made in his
> writings, I don't see how in making such a challenge, the Quran's
> author(s) would advance or damage that argument, unless the challenge
> itself was a particularly good example of some critical aspect of
> the texts.
>
First, not only is it the peak of Classical Arabic literature, it is
the peak of all literature.
Second, the Quran is a dynamic discourse. It is not merely a work,
similar to the writings of novels, but it is continually addressing
various circumstances. It is speaking to the people dynamicaly.
Third, Why would the author not make the challenge? The verse is
saying simply that you are asserting that the Quran is a fabrication
of the Prophet (S), so if you want to end the whole 'fiasco', then
simply produce a work like it. You have judged various pieces of
literature and acknowledged that poets such as Labid produced verses
such that you prostrated, i.e. your own people have produced such rare
examples of literature, produce a simple chapter like it. As the
Quran is illustrating, the Book was affecting those that were
listening to it. It was these verses that were bringing the people to
Islam,
and Muhammad sought proof for his prophethood in this Book. It was
such a wonderful discourse that people submitted themselves before it.
A miracle by its very nature is meant to produce awe, it is a
recongition of the fact that one must submit before it. You are
asking for a simple criteria, yet you do not realize that whatever
criteria one defines for it, the Quran will exceed it.
The success of Islam was based upon this Book. Even God Almighty
tells the Prpohet "You knew not what the Book was nor the faith." The
miracle He was granted was solely a gift from God, outside the realms
of any human intereference.
> Furthermore, and I won't go very far along this chain of logic,
> Shakespeare's oeuvre is not a wonderful comparison with the Quran.
> Shakespeare wrote fiction or fictionalized accounts of history--there
> are many instances where his history doesn't accord with what is
> known about the events of the past. Also, he is well known to be
> a plagiarist, just as were most playwrights of his period--many of
> his plays were basically rewrites of other plays or of well-known
> stories such as those in the Gesta Romanorum. Also, there is in
> fact considerable confusion about several of "his" plays regarding
> who wrote them, because their style, while differing in some ways,
> matches very closely that of the main body of the work attributed
> to Shakespeare. Similarly, there are several versions of his plays
> floating around, and no real way of knowing which are the "correct"
> ones. And finally, there are many who are convinced that Shakespeare
> himself didn't even write the plays, it was someone else.
>
That is not the point. Whether the validity of the theories hold,
that Shakespeaker plagiarized from his wife, or Milton, or Barney the
Purple Dinosaur, does not affect the argument of literary
appreciation. Literary appreciation is NOT a subjective thing. That
is the whole point.
>
> Empty != bad. I think it is an empty challenge because it is
> rhetorical. There is no way to tell whether it was been met or
> not except for each individual's subjective judgement of it.
>
Once again, you are asserting that literary judgement is subjective.
It is not, ESPECIALLY for those that udnerstand the language. There
are such things as wordplay, irony, rhetoric, and the like. If one
reads the debates between Moses and Pharoah, one will find a stunning
example of the discourse of the Quran. One will found how Moses
challenged the Pharoah with such self-confidence, not backing down
>from any of Pharoahs questions, then as the whole scene progresses,
Pharoah starts shifting aorund in his chair, noticing that his
entourage is actually in wondrous awe of the debate, so Pharoah tries
to cozy up to them and makes some sly comments to shift their
arguments away from Moses arguments. Moses starts of with My Lord is
the Lord of the Heavens and Earth. Pharoah asserted He was God on
Earth. Moses brings attention to the Heavens of which the people
themselves knew Pharoah was helpless. In another dialogue, Pharoah,
as he becomes more arrogant, tells his courtier Haman to build for him
a ladder so that He can see this Lord of the Heaven. This is the
absurdity and weakness of Pharoah who has to resort to such foolish
replies, and it is obvious he is trying to draw attention away from
Moses' arguments. After that Moses still does not back down and says
He is You Lord and the Lord of youor Forefathers. Pharoah cannot
respond and try to justify his arguments that our forefathers were
practicing what we now are practicing. Pharoah begins to squirm in
his chair, and Moses still does not back down. Lord of the East and
West. This means that yeah Phaorah you have control over land, but
you do not have full control of the land. There are other empires out
there, so how can you claim that you are God based upon the lnad you
control. Then the Quran talks about how Pharoah reacts angrily.
The words the Quran uses to describe such a short scene is very unique
and in such words that it can only astonish anybody.
> I assert that none of that is necessary for my point to be valid.
> I am not trying to decide whether any particular work meets or
> fails to meet the challenge, instead I am pointing out that no
> objective criteria exist regarding the challenge. If I am wrong,
> if you can point to a set of criteria that objectify the challenge,
> the please do so. You mention the language of the Quran, pre-Islamic
> peotry, and so on--are those the basis for deciding whether the
> challenge has been met? If so, why? Why are other possible criteria
> excluded?
>
Have you ever listened to somebody very eloquent and were just amazed
by how he spoke?
> But is that all the "book like it" challenge is about? About how
> well the text is composed? Others might disagree and interpret
> the challenge as having to do with the *content* of the text--something
> that could be expressed in various ways, not just using the words
> of the Quran. Still others might interpret the challenge in terms
> of how the Quran affected the people of the time, or how it affects
> people today.
It is not. The challenge ITSELF rejects it. The Quran is challenging
those that do not believe. It is not theological. Why would somebody
be challenged with a theology he does not even accept? The Quran is
challenging them with what they themselves know and appreciate.
> The ultimate test is also the most trivial: the unique arrangement
> of letters in the Quran can only be matched by another document
> having the same arrangement of letters, but another document that
> had the same arrangement of letters would in fact be a copy of the
> Quran itself. QED.
>
This is another example of logic devoid of real life experience.
Language is not merely a few words put otgether. They are expressions
of life, and they convey messages. How they convey messages and how
the verse relate to life is what language is all about. Language is
living, it is not some dead mathematical system. There is more to
judging something than through logical concepts devoid of real
experience.
Mete Gulenoglu
> ,
> because it's empty , you should ask why ( assuming Mohammad S L A W S )
> Wrote
> a devine unique book is followed by 1 billion of people and no one is
> following you yet
> we are waiting to see how many can follow your divine unique book. Assuming
> you are challenging the Qur'an and writing your divine unique book called
> The Mete for example .
> It is the result that count.
Hey now, you just changed the criteria of the challenge?
It was that "if one writes a book which noone can imitate then it is
divine"
But now it became "if one writes a book which 1 billion people follow
then it is divine"??
Or is it that a book must be both inimitable and be followed by 1
billion people in order for us to be sure it is divine? Next you will
also add the condition that its name must also start with the letter
"Q".
Why being followed by 1 billion people prove a book to be divine?
Muhammad succeeded in convincing people around him and then he
estbalished a state and he had an army and then Islam spreaded then
they invaded all Arabia and then al middle east and North Africa, and
forcefully converted their people to Islam. And these people told
their children that Islam is true when they are 5 years old and they
believed and when they grew up they did the same to their children up
to our time. So it mustn't be surprising that Islam is followed by one
billion people. Vedas are followed by some 800 million people so they
are divine too?
Anyway I say you better start beliving in my book already because 1000
years from now my book will have 1 billion followers, and this is a
prophecy that will prove its divinity then.
gksh...@ucdavis.edu
> one cannot?
>>
>> I have no problem whatsoever discussing the Quran or any other text
>> using the tools of textual and historical analysis. However, it
>> is my opinion that the "book like it" challenge, because "like it"
>> is inherently subjective and because no decision criteria was given
>> in the text itself, is not resolvable using those tools.
> So are you saying literary criticism is entirely subjective? Are you
> saying that the academic circles are founded upon a mere sham?
Brother, we are speaking right over each other's head.
No, in fact I am saying exactly the opposite. I am saying that the
tools of literary criticism, many of which are reasonably objective,
can be used to do many things, but not to resolve the question as
to whether the Quran is unique except in trival ways.
> The Quran is speaking to an audience that knows what literary
> appreciation entails, especially in light of their environment which
> took pride in their poetry and language.
So, the uniqueness of the Quran can be perceived only be people in
a certain culture and with a certain background? This is just
another way of saying that it is subjective. In order for it to
be objective, there must be a specific procedure that _anyone_ can
apply in order to determine its uniqueness.
Could a computer program be written to test the "book like it
challege"? What I mean is, could such a program be written *in
principle*, not that someone actually would have to write one. If
the answer is no, it is not possible in principle to write such a
program, then I argue that the challenge is subjective, not objective,
and not empirical. If the answer is yes, such a program could be
written, then I want to know what design elements would be necessary
for it.
> One who is well-versed in the language can appreciate the depth and
> breath of a literary masterpiece when they see it.
That is subjective.
> You are arguing that the criteria is subjective.
No, I'm arguing that the *challenge* is subjective and that no
specific criteria exist.
> I am saying that what you assert is based upon the fact that you do
> not know the language, and thus you have no authority to judge whether
> the challenge is subjective or not.
No authority? Does it actually say that in the Quran, that only
those who know Arabic have authority to judge the "like it" challenge?
No, and in fact, it doesn't say anything at all about who will
judge the challenge, on what basis it will be judged, or what
techniques are to be used to judge it. Going strictly on what it
says about the challenge itself (i.e., nothing), you, I, and everyone
else have equal authority to judge it.
> The success of Islam was based upon this Book. Even God Almighty
> tells the Prpohet "You knew not what the Book was nor the faith." The
> miracle He was granted was solely a gift from God, outside the realms
> of any human intereference.
> appreciation. Literary appreciation is NOT a subjective thing. That
> is the whole point.
We will simply have to agree to disagree on this. While there are
objective elements that can be used in literary criticism, there
are also subjective elements. Furthermore, even if its methods
were entirely objective, in order for them to be used to support
the like it challenge, a specific set of decision criteria would
have to be created and then tested. Individuals could then disagree
about the criteria chosen, but, if the testing were done adequately,
not about the results of the test.
For example, suppose the test had an element that measured the
average length of text between the use of an ambiguous word and
its disambiguation, and we claimed that the greater the separation,
the more eloquent the text was. Then we measured all texts that
we think might be "like it", and found, lo and behold, that the
Quran has the greatest distance, so on that test, it is the "most
eloquent". But you could justifiably argue, "But what in the heck
does the distance between homograph & disambiguator have to do with
eloquence?" and reject the test as irrelevant to the issue. This
is what happens in the world of academic text analysis when it is
applied to that kind of question, because, I repeat once again,
the question is s u b j e c t i v e!
> Have you ever listened to somebody very eloquent and were just amazed
> by how he spoke?
Yes, but my wife standing next to me and her three friends thought
he was nearly inarticulate (subjective). But we all agreed that
he used the phrase "So you see" more often than usual (objective).
Greg Shenaut