a Surah the like thereof

Ron Webb wrote: Whether a text is or isn't persuasive is a matter of opinion.

That is correct. However, subjective critical analysis of a literature is a complete science itself. The experts know it well. You just can�t ignore their expertize as merely opinionated and hence worthless. The opinion of a linguistic / literature expert, same as the expert of an art, is all that is required to judge between the two. Again, I think, you must consult your English 101 teacher. I must repeatedly say it now.

Ron Webb wrote: 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.

Yes, this also correct. But to assume all these books have same literary quality, is fallacy. Moreover, before these books are even brought on the table at par with Quran, their authenticity (as from the first human source reference) as well as their internal consistency, coherence, and without contradiction / conflict not only within the text but also with the known human history, is yet to be proven.

Ron Webb wrote: 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.

This is again not a correct view about �a miracle�. Remember, it is persuasion through conviction and not compulsion. Again, those who choose not to get convinced, are not compelled to be. Go back in the biblical miracles and tell us why Pharaoh or his royal army didn�t get convinced of Prophet Moses despite his miracle of splitting water to make passage? Similarly, for many other miracles even more subtle than these, where even the dead were brought to life. Of course, you may not believe them. But the point must be noted that the purpose of a miracle is not to compel but only to persuade. Some would and some may not.

Ron Webb wrote: 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.

Aren�t we talking about the par excellence of Quran Challenge? So, do you think, any inconsistency within or out of it, is not part of this Challenge? Why are you afraid of these rules of the challenge?

Ron Webb wrote: 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.

Now that your passage has been clearly shown to be self-inconsistent and conflicting, and therefore thrown out of the Challenge, you are most welcome to bring any specific example from Quran, if you are doubtful. However, for that, you have to follow the guidelines of the forum of choosing the right place of discussion board as per the topic heading.

airmano wrote: So we concluded that the challenging poems have to be written in Arabic.

Yes.

airmano wrote: The trouble is that modern Arabic is in many respects different (i.e. the vocabulary) from the historic Arabic the Quran is written in. A nowadays Arab would face some problems in understanding the Quran in its original form without prior training. So do I have to conclude further that the challenging text has to be written in old Arabic ?

I guess, Yes. This is a reality. Of course on one side with each year passing by technology is bringing information closer and closer, on the other side keeping the old things becoming harder and harder and Arabic is no exception with the example of Latin now well known.

airmano wrote: ahmadjoyia wrote: For example, Poems of a famous poet (in Urdu/Persian languages etc) Sir Allama Iqbal got more appreciation in Germany than, I guess, in his own town. But for this to happen, the German readers took extra pain to first understand the language. I disagree. First: "Allama Iqbal" is hardly known in Germany at all. I think I do know a bit about this subject (philosophy) and since in addition I'm German I feel competent to judge. If you look at the English Wiki entry on "Allama Iqbal" you'll find that he spent most of his time in Germany in Heidelberg and the LMU in Munich. Heidelberg is (almost) my home town and I know the LMU inside out. No major trace of Allama Iqbal. Last not least: I read most of my books in foreign languages. But this is rather to train my languages than to grasp the "uniqueness" of a certain text. So I'm sure that in most of the cases the logic goes the other way round than you claim: Most learn a language first and then they exercise on a foreign book, and not that one learns a foreign language (just) to be able to read a foreign book. I am rather sure that this applies to the few German readers that read Allama Iqbal (in Farsi) as well. (I realize of course that there are exceptions like Muslims learning Arabic to read the Quran). Could you try to find a better example to prove that restricting the contest to (old) Arabic does not cancel the (alleged) universality of the Quran. ? Airmano

Well, I tend to agree with you about the first German reading the works of Allama might not have learnt the language for his work. But based on his work, many others must have got one more reason of motivation to learn the new language. Secondly, Allama Iqbal died about more than half a century back. His current popularity in Germany was never assumed in my post. Thirdly, I have given you a relative analysis (relative to his own home town), so even if you are correct about your statistics of Germany, through a simple logic, it may still not un-validate my statement. Isn�t it?


Edited by AhmadJoyia - 12 November 2015 at 5:21am

AhmadJoyia wrote: airmano wrote: So we concluded that the challenging poems have to be written in Arabic. Yes. airmano wrote: The trouble is that modern Arabic is in many respects different (i.e. the vocabulary) from the historic Arabic the Quran is written in. A nowadays Arab would face some problems in understanding the Quran in its original form without prior training. So do I have to conclude further that the challenging text has to be written in old Arabic ? I guess, Yes.

The the Koran is certainly the best thing ever written in old Arabic.

No contest at all.

Very little else was ever written in old Arabic and nothing posh. That would have been like writing the Queen's speach in scouse (Liverpool accent).

Ron Webb wrote: Critical analysis is a legitimate field of study, but it is not a science.� I'm quite sure my high school English teachers would agree with that.� In class we were encouraged to form our own opinions about literature.� As long as we could justify our position, we didn't have to agree with the teacher or with anyone else.

Not to go into the semantics of the word, What I meant from 'science' was that the literary critical analysis tools are not speculatively opinionated as you were trying to imply. In here, if a large number of students in your class routinely reach to a different conclusion about a literature than yours, then it is necessary to note that you may not be applying the right tools of the literary analysis, for that literature.
   

Ron Webb wrote: I thought the whole point of the challenge was to establish the authenticity of the Quran.� If we have to establish authenticity beforehand, then why even bother with the challenge?

My response must be seen in the context when the comparison of Quran with other religious books is somehow is alluded to; which of course is not the topic under discussion.

Ron Webb wrote: In what way is it inconsistent or conflicting?� When was this shown?

Not to duplicate, it has been clearly shown that your passage is addressing two personalities. By giving them divine assignment, it clearly implied both are Prophets with the specified mission. However, later in the passage, only singular 'Prophet' is being addressed. Hence, this is self conflicting as well as ambiguous to the reader as who this 'Prophet' is? 'Mohammad' or 'Ali'?
If you don't agree, of course you wouldn't, then I can only humbly agree to disagree with you and let all other readers to make their own opinion about our discussion. After all, my aim was never to convert you, but only to let you know what my opinion is about the topic. Best regards.


Edited by AhmadJoyia - 12 November 2015 at 7:05pm