a Surah the like thereof

AhmadJoya

For the time being, that may be enough for a beginners, I guess.

I've seen too many goal post moving already. A list of criteria that is changed (rather "extended") all the time isn't worth anything.

So is this your word (Allah is watching you !) that the list is now complete and exhaustive or are you still "guessing" ?


Airmano

Edited by airmano - 17 November 2015 at 6:07am

Ron Webb wrote: AhmadJoyia wrote: Not necessarily. The onus to disprove it is with others and not Muslims. Like I said, the scientific tools should be able to disprove a claimed Miracle to reveal the science behind it, so that it doesn�t remain a Miracle anymore. Since, no one has been able to this since centuries, therefore, the Quran is still what it claims to be. Why is the onus on others? Doesn't the person making the claim have an obligation to support it? Or can we just make up stuff at will (e.g., Russell's Celestial Teapot) and expect others to disprove it?

Mr Russells arguments generally relate to what Religion call �Divine� things, which by their own definition, are unobservable. Thus your point is valid that it is non provable through science. However, when a miracle is described, it is by definition observable but incomprehensible. Thus to disprove the claim of a miracle, the science should be able to show how this claim is not valid. In the same sense, no one is stopping you to use any tool, literary or scientific, to disprove the claim of the Quran. This is simply because Quran�s literary style is observable.

Ron Webb wrote: And how does one go about disproving a claim like that? The claim is not falsifiable, and therefore not within the purview of science.

I did not think, you would give up so easily!! You may try again, later on, if not now. As I said, it�s an open challenge for all people and for all times to come.

Ron Webb wrote: Yes, I notice that people tend often just laugh when they don't have a rational response. I don't know if other religions use the word "miracle" to describe their scripture, but (in my experience at least) all scripture is claimed to have some sort of supernatural origin or inspiration, which is the same claim you are making. And that implies a miracle of some sort.

With my explanation of difference between divine origin (Not provable or disprovable by science) and the miracle (Disprovable by science), you should be careful in our future discussions under this topic.

Ron Webb wrote: By the way, I have been referring to the Bhagavad Gita, because that is the only Hindu scripture I have read; but a more appropriate example in this case would be the Vedas: The Vedas are eternal. They are without beginning and end. An ignorant man may say how a book can be without beginning or end. By the Vedas, no books are meant. Vedas came out of the breath of the Lord. They are the words of God. The Vedas are not the utterances of persons. They are not the composition of any human mind. They were never written, never created. They are eternal and impersonal. The date of the Vedas has never been fixed. It can never be fixed. Vedas are eternal spiritual Truths. Vedas are an embodiment of divine knowledge. The books may be destroyed, but the knowledge cannot be destroyed. Knowledge is eternal. In that sense, the Vedas are eternal.

Ok!!! Now I do see you improving upon your listed books. At least it�s encouraging to see you find the difference between Gita and Vedas!

Ron Webb wrote: Seriously, do you think a panel of atheists would agree that the Quran is superior to all other writing?

Why are you surprised? This is what exactly has been happening since the past immemorial. However, for every new comer (atheist Judge), the conversion of previous Judges to Islam, after honestly examining the Quran, has always been suspicious. Just like yourself. In fact, in my own opinion, this challenge is one way of generating curiosity among the non-Muslims, to explore Quran in their honest attempt to understand it, either as a Challenger or as a Judge.

Ron Webb wrote: They have to be Muslims, don't they?

Not exclusively!

Ron Webb wrote: Can you find me a single surah that can stand alone, without reference to other surahs or extrinsic information? So why are you imposing this restriction on mine? Wouldn't you expect "a surah the like thereof" to be related to the other surahs in the same way?

All suras are standalone in their own context and harmonious with the overall theme of the book. This is not the same as your text as it contradicts its own assertion of plurality in divine assignment.

Ron Webb wrote: Just as the message of my text is perfectly understandable without knowledge of who the Prophet is.

I don�t agree and I guess you won�t either. So, instead of spending more time repeating same arguments; as I suggested earlier that we should leave it for the readers to make their own choice.

Ron Webb wrote: And where is the contradiction in this? Muhammad and Ali are described as "the two lights", which "proceed the one from the other". Ali is thus designated as the successor to Muhammad; but nothing in the surah appoints him as a prophet, so his authority is merely secular, i.e. he succeeds Muhammad as a caliph but not as a prophet.

Since you agreed about the divine assignment to both, it is again important for you to note that Caliphs are never divinely appointed. If they are, as you propose, then there is no difference between �a Prophet� and �a Caliph�; successor or no successor, is then immaterial.



Edited by AhmadJoyia - 16 November 2015 at 12:05am

Ron Webb wrote: AhmadJoyia wrote: Let me put in other words; for the majority of people, the claim of �inimitability� of Quran is still valid since no challenger could prove it otherwise. Hence, in this sense, yes this is a miracle. However, it doesn�t mean, this �majority� implies �all� the people. Or to put it another way, it is valid to those who believe it is valid. That is not a proof; it is a tautology. .

Not necessarily. The onus to disprove it is with others and not Muslims. Like I said, the scientific tools should be able to disprove a claimed Miracle to reveal the science behind it, so that it doesn�t remain a Miracle anymore. Since, no one has been able to this since centuries, therefore, the Quran is still what it claims to be.

Ron Webb wrote: It could be said of anything: if I believe that the Bhagavad Gita, or the Bible, or the Book of Mormon, is a miracle, then to me it is a miracle.

I can�t help laughing at such a suggestion. By the way, is there any claim by themselves or you are making it up from your own self on their behalf?

Ron Webb wrote: The majority of which judges? Christians? Jews? Atheists? Or is the panel only open to Muslims?

I have already provided you the criteria of Judges. In my opinion, atheists are more preferable because of their inherent impartiality, lest they are dishonest.

Ron Webb wrote: AhmadJoyia wrote: Come on brother! First, no one stops you to bring your Text more voluminous than Quran. Second, it is more hard and difficult to remain consistent in larger text than in a smaller one. The challenge is to bring a surah the like thereof, not an entire Quran.

Of course! But this is the minimum. If you can bring whole book, no one should have objection to it.

Ron Webb wrote: None of the other surahs are expected to be understood in isolation. Why should mine?

�Isolation� of other suras, and not in isolation of other books. In yours, there is an internal conflict within one part of the passage with the other part.

Ron Webb wrote: In fact, I have been told countless times that even the Quran itself cannot be understood without reference to the circumstances and the order in which it was revealed, the specific incidents to which it responds, etc.

This is not true in absolute terms and only depends to what level of understanding is needed by an individual. For us, the Quran is all self explanatory.

Ron Webb wrote: Just one example: Surah 105 is about "the companions of the elephant". Nowhere in that surah, nor (as far as I am aware) in the entire Quran, is it explained who this refers to.

The sura describes the state of affair happened to the �people of the elephant� for their arrogance without specifically announcing the identity. This is perfectly a complete moral lesson. Of course for historians or others, they might bring other knowledge to this sura, but it is not essential.

Ron Webb wrote: AhmadJoyia (in response to airmano) wrote: But his passage went off the table simply because it was unable to qualify the pre-conditions of the challenge, i.e. self-contradicting. You haven't shown it to be self-contradicting. At best, you have suggested it is ambiguous, because it doesn't specify who The Prophet is. And that is true -- but it is also true of most of the suras of the Quran, so that cannot be a criterion.

Your passage is self-contradicting simply because while giving divine assignment to both �Mohammad� and �Ali�, the later part of the passage is addressing only a singular person without explicitly stating who this person is, �Mohammad� or �Ali�. Your suggestion of a �third� person makes the whole purpose of the passage even more superfluous and the divine assignment to these two gentlemen becomes irrelevant.

Let me put in other words; for the majority of people, the claim of �inimitability� of Quran is still valid since no challenger could prove it otherwise.

No. You have to support the claim. Zero support with zero anything else is a result of "has no support".

All claims start off as presumed to be drivel untill they get backed up.