Many of my Muslim friends tell me that the best evidence to prove that the Qu’ran was a direct revelation from God is to look at the poetic and rhythmic masterpiece that it is. Apparently it is so good, that only an omnipotent being would be capable of penning it.
There is a verse in the Qu’ran that challenges any man to produce a chapter like it.
Surah 2:3.
I was wondering if it is actually possible to do this (produce a chapter like it), and if it is impossible, does this prove that the Qu’ran is a devine revelation?
My first question would be, “A masterpiece in whose opinion?”
You can put “rap masterpiece” into Google and come up with a number of hits, all of which consider completely different rap songs a “masterpiece”.
Also, I have an acquaintance who claims that Christianity is the only true religion, because “look at all the masterpieces of music it’s produced–like Bach, and John Peterson cantatas, and ‘How Great Thou Art’…”
So the production of a “masterpiece” doesn’t prove anything about a religion.
Are you saying it’s only possible to recognise beauty that is reproducable? I’m not sure why you would make such a claim.
I have tried looking for an analysis of the Qu’ran by non-Muslim Arabic speakers, but am unable to find any. If you ask those who are native Arabic speakers, they seem to concur that it is, indeed, a masterpiece and that no one could ever reproduce it. Apparently each Surah and Ayah contain a certain number of syllables per line, and the number of syllables per line follows some sort of pattern, etc. When I say masterpiece, I am not just referring to the linguistic beauty of it.
Imagine you feed all arabic words into a computer, and make it produce random sequences or words.
It may be improbable, but it is certainly possible that the computer will also produce the Koran at some point. The probability is non-zero.
You give a human pieces of paper with all arabic words, and ask him or her to produce random sequences. It is also possible, although less likely for any given period of time, that a person using this method will produce the Koran. But again, the probability is non-zero.
This argument proves that it is possible for a human to produce the Koran, or any other literary work. It may be unlikely, or very difficult, but it cannot be impossible.
Unless you can argue that a thinking human with artistic goal is actually less likely to produce the Koran than a human picking random pieces of paper, then of course it is also possible that someone attempting to create an artistic work can come up with something on the level of the Koran.
Analysis of the Koran by Muslin or non-Muslim speakers does not change these facts. It is possible for a human to come up with any work of literature.
Revtim is right on about this. Any work of literature might possibly be duplicated given enough time through sheer chance. Thus the argument that there is something so unique about the Qu’ran that it could not be the origin of man is patently absurd, so long as only the words themselves are considered. One might formulate an argument that the instructions of moral law might only be sourced from a divine entity if they are to have any force, or that only a person with divine guidance would have dared to write such a piece and publicized it, but the mere writing of the words themselves must be conceded to have the possibility of terrestrial origin.
Since language is a tool of human reason, it seems more or less self-evident that given time, any level of ‘masterpiece’ could be achieved. A human mechanism cannot reach beyond its own limits – if it can be understood purely in terms of its literary structure and merit (all puny human concepts) then it really can’t be of divine caliber.
Philosophically, I feel the need to point out that no degree of beauty in a written text would ever be proof positive of any variation of god. If the beauty can be grasped, then its creation is within human means, if it is so grand and wonderful as to be beyond human capacity, then we could not understand it for the masterpiece that it is. If it was that good, mere human language wouldn’t be able to communicate it. Language of Man, Mind of God – the latter will not fit within the former.
Strictly speaking, you cannot frame the notion of god within any human framework. Should god exist, such a being would be fundamentally beyond our most basic understanding - certainly I doubt we could pick up on the writing style of the Supreme Being.
IMHO, I find the idea a more than a little stupid.
“This hot chocolate is soooooooooo delicious — I’m going to CHURCH!!!”
I wonder what would happen to someone in an Islamic country who said that the Koran was not a masterpiece? Look what they tried to do to Salman Rushdie? They don’t exactly have an open critical environment.
Also, it appears that there is evidence that the Koran did not assume its final form until centuries after the time of Mohammed. So, its divine origin is somewhat open to question.
Actually, I have heard the same sort of argument about the Western Bible - that it is so well written (and has survived so long) that it must be divinely inspired.
The Koran, the Bible…all spiritual texts are simply a Hand, pointing the way to God, or to Perfection (if either exists).
When we become so enamored of the Koran, or the Bible, or any such book, then we are worshipping the Hand. At that point, we have lost sight of where the hand is pointing, and are lost.
And if you (Arab pagans, Jews, and Christians) are in doubt concerning that which We have sent down (i.e. the Qur’ân) to Our slave (Muhammad Peace be upon him ), then produce a Sûrah (chapter) of the like thereof and call your witnesses (supporters and helpers) besides Allâh, if you are truthful. **
I read this as saying (paraphrased) "The verses in the Qu’ran are so beautiful that only a God (the J/C/I one) could produce them, not a man. This seems to be a way of challenging the idea that there is no god and the Qu’ran was really written by Mohamed.
My answer is that of course I believe the Qu’ran was written (or dictated) by (the J/C/I) God. I simply choose not to follow it. I follow other Gods and therefored don’t have to listen to (the J/C/I) God.
As with so many theist arguments, this is a total non sequitur.
Even if you accept that the Qu’ran (or a chapter of it) is a poetic and rhythmic masterpiece beyond the capabilities of any human the only conclusion that logically follows is that it was written by a being that is better at writing poetic and rhythmic masterpieces than humans. That is all.
To suggest that the logical conclusion is a baseless logical leap.
If one finds a footprint in the mud that is too big to have been made by any known animal, is it logical to conclude that it must have been made by an omnipotent animal? Or merely by an animal with feet bigger than any yet known?
The argument is tiresome. It is like creationists who argue that evolution is false so creation must be true, or that consciousness continues after clinical death so there must be a god.
Once and for all, repeat after me, “Every peculiar little fact, unusual writing or weird physiological phenomenon does not meaningfully validate your entire supernatural world view”.
Only the tooth fairy is capable of such a feat. However there is a move on today to require that anyone writing such a document be a member of the Screen Writers Guild.
In my readings of the Qu’ran, I’ve found some of it to be deeply offensive, some of it to be unintentionally silly and most of it to be redundant and simple-minded.
The Qu’ran is also filled with abrubt changes in style and content matter that suggest the original material has been shuffled about.
To call this beyond the ability of human beings is just foolish.
BTW, people should recognize that Islam holds that the Qu’ran is the perfect, eternal word of god. It was NOT divinely inspired (as Christians belive the Bible to be), rather it was delivered to mankind by God himself and has been passed down to this day without a single error. This belief should always be kept in mind when examining the Qu’ran.
This issue raises in my mind the question of what would a divine revalation really be like? Why would an omnipotent God limit himself to using Arabic (or Latin, Greek or anything else) to convey his/her/its message to humanity? Why not write the message in a magical language that all people could read, even the illiterate and the blind? Why do we need scholars to debate and interpret the meaning of various passages in the sacred texts (even though the Qu’ran repeatedly asserts that its meaning is clear to all who read it)? Would’nt the omnipotent diety be able to construct something easily understood by all? Why limit yourself to pen and paper for this revalation? Why not write it in the sky so that all the world may see it rather than just those in certain ethinc groups?
“Divine” texts are an enormous let down if you ask me.
As I pointed out in my hamstered message, people tend to see the beauty of things they are familiar with. There are plenty of people who morn abandoning the poetry of “The King James Version” of the Bible, even though the language is hundreds of years out-of-date, and some of the translation is shaky on account of poor understanding of several of the ancient languages that were sources.
The difference between Shakespeare and the Qur’an is a couple fold. First, S. was not writing things as religious truths. There are many passages which are anything but “perfect” – or even interesting. S. revised heavily, and had a whole troupe of actors to work out the details of nuance. The Qur’an is pretty much the opposite: one man, alone, writing without revision, only on subjects of universal importance. (At least, this is what Muslims believe.)
The translations I read of the Qur’an 20 years ago were partly incomprehensible. No question the translators weren’t up to their task. More recent translations tend to be more lucid. So don’t go reading an old Penguin classic and expect enlightenment.
As far as accepting any divine message from the Qur’an, I’m reminded of a violent atheist of my acquaintance who read the entire Bible, determined she was going to get nothing out of it. This is really amazing – believe it or not – she DIDN’T. But then… she kinda misses the point on many philosophical and political arguments. Believes in equality of mankind – except for orientals – you know the kind – truly honest introspective searchers of truth.
I don’t really think there is much of a debate to be had really. To a believer it is what it is. For a non-believer it is a text. In order to judge the text (as a literary object, as a matter of belief, well just stating it’s just not appealing suffices I think) it would be highly preferable to be familiar with its genre and its original language (I don’t think any poetry ever translates well into non-related languages).
Collounsbury, you may be aware of the extraordinary find of old Qur’ans in Yemen awhile ago? These were texts which were falling apart – but couldn’t be destroyed – stored in a loft?
The sensation is that there are textual differences between the older versions, and the modern Qur’an. These are being only very cautiously released to avoid giving offense, and, one supposes for the scholarly world to have time to digest their significance.
What I’d really like is for you to comment on the few textual variations that have been published, in papers by the German scholars involved. They included pictures. Unfortunately, I just spent 30 minutes looking for them, and they seem to have disappeared since I read them a year ago.
Anybody have any solid facts about what’s going with these scrolls?
