a Surah the like thereof

Again:

All these discussions are pointless as long as there are no rules.

Requesting that a challenging surah (as "Ron's Surah" for instance) has to conform exactly to Mohamed's reasoning and style, boils down to the points two to four in my post:

- Only authors that carry the name Mohamed can be accepted [and he/she got to be illiteral].
- The competitor has/had to be born in Mecca
- The prose must be more than 1350 years old.

We are now on page 17 and you have still not defined clear criteria for this challenge.

Once more: Could you please ...!



Airmano


Ps: To complete this parody you can of course also stick to my list (I know that we are still missing the cave) !

Edited by airmano - 13 November 2015 at 5:42am

Ron Webb wrote: But on one calls it a miracle that most of the class finds Shakespeare moving and persuasive.

Doesn�t matter if it is called miracle or not, that is not the point, although the faithful believers of Shakespeare might call it a miracle in their own sense. Similarly, when the Quran is compared with all the Arabic 'Shakespeare' of the world and till to date none is found even closer to Quran, only then Muslims may also allowed to call it a miracle.

Ron Webb wrote: Surah 60 (al-Mumtahina 60:12) refers to "O Prophet!" without explaining who this prophet is. So do many other suras. Therefore my text is "the like thereof" in that respect as well.

Your comparison is faulty simply because all Suras of Quran are essential part of the book. Therefore, when �O Prophet� is mentioned, until or unless specifically stated for some other Prophet, the reader finds no difficulty in understanding as who is he. This is not the same as your text. By the way, this is an open challenge. That means, its not time bound. So, you can always improve upon your text by removing such obvious contradictions and put up again for the challenge. May be I or any body else wouldn't be able to pick at least such obvious mistakes. Why don't you give it a try.

I'm not sure which "scholar's site" you are referring to, but so far your scholars have offered nothing of value, aside from a catalogue of common rhetorical devices.

Surprising, very surprising! I mean you keep talking from a nineteen to a dozen about Tzortsis but here you are asking me which scholar's site? LOL..........

Your capabilities may be responsible or rather a lack of them that prevent you from grasping what you are being told. How can a man who does not know aleph of Arabic can pretend to understand complexities of that language?

We are not discussing the characteristics of a language. We are discussing the characteristics of the Quran, and specifically those characteristics that make it a "miracle". What are those characteristics, in you opinion?

Of course, the language of the book comes first. I do not know all characteristics fully yet, that make Quran unique. But I know a few. For example, the Quran's miracles. Some of which I conveyed to you in earlier conversations but you dismissed them. I told you about scientific knowledge it contains that was not known to mankind at the time of its revelation.

You may go here to learn about them: http://www.speed-light.info/miracles_of_quran/

After weeks of stalling, you finally offered me Tzortzi's list of three criteria, which consist of:
1. Unique Literary Form, i.e. not like any of the traditional poetic forms;
2. Unique Lingustic Genre, whatever that means; and
3. An abundance of (perfectly ordinary) rhetorical devices.

When I pointed out that these are not difficult criteria, and that even the example from my opening post meets them (insofar as they are defined), you then suddenly decided to set all that aside and insist that it has to be in Arabic! So why didn't you tell me in the first place that Arabic was your primary criterion?

Suddenly? Is it not obvious that if a comparison has to be made between two texts then they have to be similar and in the same language. Or, do I attribute to you a higher intelligence than you actually have?

Okay, so it has to be in Arabic. Why? What is it about Arabic that makes it a "miracle"?

Arabic language is a rich, complex language. The same word may have different meanings. From the same root, you may create tens of derivatives, each derivative has its own significance. By varying the structure of a sentence, you can change the meaning of the sentence. That may explain why translators of the Quran, particularly non-Arab translators, face a very difficult task. No one knows what is in the mind of God and therefore the full intended meaning of each word of the Quran. So, translators find themselves trying to guess what God may have meant.

Each word in the Quran may have multi-level meaning with multi-dimensional significance and may have been chosen by God for multiple purposes. These unique aspects of the Quran may allow, for example, an ordinary Muslim to understand the meaning correctly of a word or verse, but only at one level of depth, while another Muslim may be able to capture a different meaning or significance at another level of depth. Both could be correct in their understanding.

You may think of every word or verse in the Quran as a marvelous painting or piece of art, done by God, the Master Artist and Creator of the Universe, each person who views it (or reads it) may come to a different conclusion regarding the message or meaning intended by God through that word or verse. A Muslim astronomer, who is also expert in Arabic, may be able to infer information of significance in astronomy when reading a verse that an ordinary Muslim will not notice.

http://www.discoveringislam.org/the_quran.htm

Also because: The language of the Prophet (pbuh) to whom the Quran was sent down as revelation was Arabic. If the Quran had been sent down to Hazrat Muhammad (pbuh) in another language, he would not have understood it. Could it have been possible for a prophet who was appointed to convey and explain a book that he could not understand to convey and explain it to others?

Airmano predicted this weeks ago. I guess if I had believed him I could have saved myself a lot of trouble. If you eventually concede that there is nothing special about the Arabic language, are you going to tell me that it has to be revealed in a cave? LOL

You can still save yourself a lot of trouble by starting to learn arabic.

Btw, why do you need to descend to the level of a rabid bigot if you are losing an argument or you are frustrated? For example, why did you need to refer to a cave while discussing arabic? The innuendo cheapens you.

@The Saint:
Here you state:
The Saint:
Accusations as reported by you get thrown at you when you start denying things about the Quran that are patently false or incorrect. Because you forget that Muslims read the Quran also and know when you are lying or denying things


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

All in good time. I shall try to find time to do it soonest.