a Surah the like thereof

AhmadJoyia wrote: I don't see your reply to contest my observation about the Bismillah portion of your text. What should I assume here? Are we settled here or you just forgot to defend?

My apologies for the oversight.  Yes, I try to limit the length of my replies to be no longer than the post to which I am replying -- otherwise individual posts can become tediously long on both sides.  Perhaps my responses to the Bismillah ended up on the editing floor, so to speak.  However, I'll come back to them here:

AhmadJoyia (November 7) wrote: These are the attributes and not epithets. You would be knowing the difference. Do you?

Epithets generally are formed from attributes, e.g. the attribute "great" is the basis of "Alexander the Great".  In the same way, "God the Merciful" would be an epithet emphasizing the (allegedly) merciful nature of God.  However, I don't really want to be dragged into a debate over semantics.  Call them whatever you want.

AhmadJoyia (November 7) wrote: Wow! With a literary expert person like you and knowing the differences among these, are you suggesting that literature should get rid of these terminologies. Is your suggestion Quran specific or you intend to include other literature as well?

Such distinctions may matter to grammarians and to literary critics, but I'm not sure why they would matter in apologetics.  It's a bit like debating the colour of a horse when betting on a horse race.  Is there some reason to suppose that God would prefer a name or an epithet rather than an attribute, or vice versa?

AhmadJoyia (November 7) wrote: This has definitely surprised me. I really thought, (nevertheless I still) that you are one of the literature experts that I have come across. Do you really think, the order of words they are arranged in a sentence, doesn't matter how this sentence is persuasive or not?

Perhaps to some people, but I hope I am persuaded more by the force of ideas than the force of words.  In this case, for instance, it doesn't matter to me whether you call him "God the Merciful" or the "merciful God".  It's still not going to persuade me that the Inventor of Hell (how's that for an epithet?) can be fairly described as merciful.

======

To return to your most recent post:

AhmadJoyia wrote: I have already explained, though its really up to you or your understanding.

I'm sorry, but I don't think you have.  As far as I can see, your only explanation is to imply that that God must communicate in Arabic because the Quran is in Arabic.  This assumes what we are trying to prove, i.e. that the Quran is from God.  It is a circular argument.

However, I won't argue the point.  As I think I have already said, you are welcome to translate the example into Arabic if you think that would help.

Even if 1000's of translations be presented, they would simply can't match the original, irrespective if it is Quran or any other text. This is merely due to translational errors for the reasons already explained.

I understand that.

I only said not unique. 'Unusual' is not what I said nor meant. Secondly, there are several elements in each linguistic style; and to my understanding, Quran uses several of them in an innovative manner. For example "Poetic by not Poetry" etc. For details, now that you have the work of Dr H Ahmad, I would rather encourage you to go through it for better understanding of what I am trying to say here.

I have read what Dr. Ahmed has to say about it, but he does not explain the "innovative manner" you allude to.  Poets often write poems without following any traditional forms of rhyming or meter.  We call these poems "free verse".  That's what the Quran is: free verse.  Please explain what "innovation" is involved here.

Err!!! This is not factual and without knowing the history of each religion. At the time of its first revelation, there was hardly any Muslim. So, in that period of time, mostly in Makkah, the persuasion was for non-muslims. Slowly and gradually, as the Muslim conversions increased, suras for community guidance and laws, were revealed and that happened mostly in Madina. Therefore, you would find the Madina Suras lengthier than Makkahen. So, in every stage, the tone and strength of persuasion in Quran varies with the time and type of its revelations, yet remained consistent, internally as well as in the overall theme. I guess, another uniqueness!

The point is that some people are persuaded by the Quran, and some are not; just as some are persuaded by the Bhagavad Gita or the Bible, and some are not.  Naturally, Muslims are predisposed to find the Quran especially persuasive, just as Hindus and Christians would feel the same about their scriptures; but there is no objective reason to suppose that the Quran's style is exceptional.  Or if there is, I wish someone would tell me what it is.

Wow!! What an obtuse logic based on flimsy assumption. Here is the relevant portion of this hadith "and also from the men who knew it by heart, till I found the last Verse of Surat At-Tauba (Repentance) with Abi Khuzaima Al-Ansari, and I did not find it with anybody other than him." clearly implies, to my understanding, a) The source for compilation was not just written but oral also. b) He found the whole of the quran both written as well as oral (from at least two sources as per the instructions of the Caliph). c) However, for the last verse of Surat At-Tauba, he could only find one source. (This could be only oral as you suggested, or it could only be written or both). Your assumption can be refuted, given the very fact that the search by Zaid of something missing, would only happen when anything Zaid already knew it existed (may be orally). So, now we can understand that Zaid's statement to search for it and have it only from one source, conclusively implies that it was the written document and not just the oral one. Again, remember that the written document is just another layer of authentication.

The hadith does not say that he found the entire Quran, or even most of the Quran, in written form.  Knowing that a verse exists is not the same thing as knowing what it says.  Many times I remember that there is another verse to a song, but I can't tell you the words.  Besides, just reading Surah 9, it is evident that verse 128 (the second-last verse) is an incomplete thought, and requires a final verse to complete it.

As I said, this is a matter of another topic so as not to diverge from the actual. Just a quick glance at following reference may answer what you are looking for (al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 61, Number 572.

The hadith you referenced is interesting, but not at all convincing.  First, it is not a systematic attempt to verify the Quran.  Second, it is highly unlikely that Abdullah bin Amr was reciting the whole Quran.  If he finished it every night as he claimed, then it could hardly have been the Quran as we know it today.  He must have meant that he recited as much as had been revealed at that time; and since "the period of the greatest part of revelation" was just before Muhammad died (al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 61, Number 505), that may have been a small fraction of the total.

Also note that there are three ahadith (521, 524 and 525) that list the four people who had collected the entire Quran when the Prophet died.  The lists do not agree with each other, but Abdullah bin Amr is not among any of them.

However, kindly note that the actual topic itself has taken what more than 13 pages. This is already too long for others to follow. Moreover, we have to abide by the rules of the forum, as well.

Thirteen pages is relatively short compared with many of these discussions.  I'm not sure which rules you are referring to, but I am not aware that we are violating any.  I certainly try to abide by the Forum rules.

For Written Compilation, he instructed as to what and where each Sura would fit in; and yes, I may agree, it wasn't done by the scribes. But orally, yes, he did it completely and fully rehearsed with the community, at least once during the Month of Ramadan.

What is your evidence for that?  By the way, are you aware that even Muhammad occasionally forgot some of the verses?  (See hadith 558.)

One can't avoid being surprised by your logic. Where did this passage explicitly announce as who is the Prophet? Moreover, remember that we are not discussing the authenticity of the passage but the 'sura like there of..'. So, you must not assume that here Prophet implies Prophet Mohammad.

Most of the surahs in the Quran make that assumption.  Why wouldn't "a sura the like thereof" do the same?

Secondly, its not the matter of recitation of verses alone that this passage is asserting, but also that they both would

Of course they would.  So would Abdullah bin Amr, as we just discussed.  So would a great many Muslims.  There is nothing unusual about Muslims reciting the Quran.

Thus, the plurality in the divine assignment to both Mohammad and Ali. However, later on, only singular 'prophet' is being addressed without indicating as to who is he? 'Mohammad' or 'Ali'.

The divine assignment was not as a prophet.  That had already been accomplished long before; and Muhammad was well-known to be the final prophet, so there could be no such misunderstanding.  The assignmment was to Ali as caliph, to succeed Muhammad as a secular leader for the Muslims.  I assume that is the reason this surah was suppressed.

In my post right after I asked you "... show me where I said anything false about the Quran..."

I'm still waiting for it.
Could you please ?


Airmano

I will show you when I find those posts. I have not had time yet. But I will. In Sha Allah. You may trip again, doing it.

Hi Ron Webb
Opening up too many issue in one topic for which other pertinent topics exists elsewhere in the forum is not desirable and loses focus. Probably this is one of the reason you missed out on replying to an important part of the discussion. Therefore, I shall only reply to that part of the discussion which has direct relation to the topic under discussion and encourage you to open up new topics for any other issue about Islam which you may wish to talk about. But not under this topic.

Ron Webb wrote: Epithets generally are formed from attributes, e.g. the attribute "great" is the basis of "Alexander the Great". In the same way, "God the Merciful" would be an epithet emphasizing the (allegedly) merciful nature of God. However, I don't really want to be dragged into a debate over semantics. Call them whatever you want.

The whole discussion is about comparing the literary styles of Quran vs your supplied text and you think semantics is not important. Very strange!

Ron Webb wrote: ]Such distinctions may matter to grammarians and to literary critics, but I'm not sure why they would matter in apologetics. It's a bit like debating the colour of a horse when betting on a horse race. Is there some reason to suppose that God would prefer a name or an epithet rather than an attribute, or vice versa?

Grammar and literary beauty of a text is all part of the Challenge. I thought you knew it. If not, I can give you a chance that you may go and amend your text and bring it again on the table. Do you want to revise it?

Ron Webb wrote: Perhaps to some people, but I hope I am persuaded more by the force of ideas than the force of words.

You can�t express the ideas without words. Can you? Thus the sentence construction with perfect use of words in a concise and effective manner, is all part of the challenge. I thought you knew it.

Ron Webb wrote: In this case, for instance, it doesn't matter to me whether you call him "God the Merciful" or the "merciful God".

It does matter in a persuasive writing style. If you still don�t get it, please take help of some of your English 101 teachers.

Ron Webb wrote: It's still not going to persuade me that the Inventor of Hell (how's that for an epithet?) can be fairly described as merciful

I assume this type of comment is not a part of the challenge, though it does show ones frustration once getting closer to loose it.

Ron Webb wrote: I'm sorry, but I don't think you have. As far as I can see, your only explanation is to imply that that God must communicate in Arabic because the Quran is in Arabic. This assumes what we are trying to prove, i.e. that the Quran is from God. It is a circular argument. However, I won't argue the point.

No that is not the point here. No one is asking you to believe that Quran is from God. This is not the Challenge. Right! All we are saying is that since the Quran is in Arabic, therefore any Challenge made in the Quran to produce a sura like it thereof.. must be in Arabic, so as to make a fair comparison between the texts. That is all. Again, the Judges don�t have to be Muslims alone. Wouldn�t it be fair to compare Apples with Apples and Oranges with Oranges?

Ron Webb wrote: As I think I have already said, you are welcome to translate the example into Arabic if you think that would help.

My translation of your text into Arabic?????? Are you serious? Are you short of funds to hire people to do that? (From the lighter part of it) What happened to all that money that came through the donations for this project? I really can�t help it, if you didn�t plan for this type of expenditure in your initial proposal to your sponsors.

Ron Webb wrote: AhmadJoyia wrote: Even if 1000's of translations be presented, they would simply can't match the original, irrespective if it is Quran or any other text. This is merely due to translational errors for the reasons already explained. I understand that.

Good! So, if you understand this, then please stop arguing about it and get your script prepared in Arabic. Remember, Apples to Apples!!!

Ron Webb wrote: I have read what Dr. Ahmed has to say about it, but he does not explain the "innovative manner" you allude to. Poets often write poems without following any traditional forms of rhyming or meter. We call these poems "free verse". That's what the Quran is: free verse. Please explain what "innovation" is involved here.

Just to avoid repetition, look at it from another angle. Persuasive writing involves the same styles as anyone else, yet one writer's text is better than the other. Please explain to us what innovation is brought into ones writing to call it more persuasive than the other. I hope by answering this, you may find the your answer.

Ron Webb wrote: AhmadJoyia wrote: One can't avoid being surprised by your logic. Where did this passage explicitly announce as who is the Prophet? Moreover, remember that we are not discussing the authenticity of the passage but the 'sura like there of..'. So, you must not assume that here Prophet implies Prophet Mohammad. Most of the surahs in the Quran make that assumption. Why wouldn't "a sura the like thereof" do the same?

Very well. Here is my answer. When Quran says something, the reader knows who is being addressed. Nothing ambiguous about it. However, when we read your text, it makes a fatal mistake of initially addressing two people �Mohammad� and �Ali� and equating them in power and then in later part of the passage, addresses only in singular person. Who is he? This is called internal conflict / contradiction.

Ron Webb wrote: AhmadJoyia wrote: Secondly, its not the matter of recitation of verses alone that this passage is asserting, but also that they both would Of course they would. So would Abdullah bin Amr, as we just discussed. So would a great many Muslims. There is nothing unusual about Muslims reciting the Quran.

Probably you didn�t get my argument here because of partial quotation from my reply! My fault that I didn�t present it clearly. I shall try again. Your text doesn�t merely talk about the recitation of verses by the two, �Mohammad� and �Ali�, but also that they both would ��put you on your guard against the chastisement of the great day.�
So, now tell me who human can claim this other than the Prophet? Nevertheless, over here, both are clearly empowered to be equal.

Ron Webb wrote: The divine assignment was not as a prophet. That had already been accomplished long before; and Muhammad was well-known to be the final prophet, so there could be no such misunderstanding.

Please don�t read what is not there in your text. This is sheer violation of the challenge rules. The passage must be self sufficient without consistency errors.

Ron Webb wrote: The assignmment was to Ali as caliph, to succeed Muhammad as a secular leader for the Muslims.

Sorry, I didn�t get it. Which part of your text says that? Please show us without bringing anything from outside.

Ron Webb wrote: I assume that is the reason this surah was suppressed.

But you yourself declared it unauthentic! Isn�t it? Even an outsider person like you found out that. Why others shouldn�t!

AhmadJoyia wrote: The whole discussion is about comparing the literary styles of Quran vs your supplied text and you think semantics is not important. Very strange!

Semantics is the study of the meanings of words.  If we were talking about the meaning of a word that appeared in the Quran, then of course it would be important to this discussion.  But if we are simply debating what word we should use to describe something in the Quran, whether "epithet" or "name" or "attribute", then I really don't care.  Use whatever word you want, and define it however you choose.  As long as your definition is clear and unambiguous, I will accept it.

Just to avoid repetition, look at it from another angle. Persuasive writing involves the same styles as anyone else, yet one writer's text is better than the other. Please explain to us what innovation is brought into ones writing to call it more persuasive than the other. I hope by answering this, you may find the your answer.

Whether a text is or isn't persuasive is a matter of opinion.  As I said, some people are persuaded by the Quran, some by the Bhagavad Gita, some by the Bible.  And some people (most, in fact) aren't persuaded, of course.

If every single person who read the Quran was persuaded, then that would be a miracle.  But if it is enough to call it a miracle when only some are persuaded, then every religious scripture is a miracle.

Please don�t read what is not there in your text. This is sheer violation of the challenge rules. The passage must be self sufficient without consistency errors.

There are no "challenge rules", at least none spelled out in the Quran.  Therefore your attempts to define such rules is itself a demonstration that the Quran is not self-sufficient.  But there are many other such passages, where an obscure passage is explained with "Oh, that verse was revealed at such-and-such time and pertains to some particular circumstance."  I'm sure you know of many such passages yourself.  So my example is "a sura the like thereof" to the Quran in that respect.

But you yourself declared it unauthentic! Isn�t it? Even an outsider person like you found out that. Why others shouldn�t!

Of course I consider it unauthentic.  IMHO it is "the like" to the Quran in that respect as well.