Thursday, March 6, 2014

The Qur'anic Test of Divine Inspiration

According to Qur'an 4:82, if the Qur'an were from anyone other than Allah, it would be filled with "much discrepancy" (much error or contradiction). There are three problems with this test of divine inspiration. First, why "much" discrepancy? Is the Qur'an saying that some error is perfectly compatible with divine inspiration? Second, if this verse is correct, any book that doesn't contain "much discrepancy" is the divinely inspired Word of God! So any math books or other books that do not contain "much error" are, according to this verse, Allah's divinely inspired Word! Third, the Qur'an does contain "much discrepancy," so it fails its own test!


bazza31 said...

Lol! Isn't one of the " proofs" Muslims claim that no one can produce a verse like it? My question is how did satan do it in the satanic verses? Islam is beyond a joke!

Carlos said...

Basmallah contradiction

the ‘bozzo ’ in video above claims that Basmallah verse IS NOT PART OF SURAH FATIHA , even more not only that he also claims according to concensus of Sunni mullahs, BASMALLAH IS NOT PART OF ANY SURAH IN Quran (except Surah an-Naml)
Now another ’ bozzo’ claims the TOTAL OPPOSITE watch 2:53 to 3:38 , He argues based on his madhab (Shafii , which is 75% of the sunni) that Basmallah is the verse of EVERY SURAH IN QURAN(except Surah At-Tawba)

Now who’s the ‘real bozzo’ then ? Imam in first video or the one in second ?

For answer I try to look in Sunni path website ( )

The answer they provide is just ambiguous. Here’s some of it :
QUOTE *** There are two kinds of basmala's in the Quran: one basmala that occurs in the middle of Sura al-Naml, and 113 others that occur at the beginning of every sura of the Quran except Sura al-Tawba. There is scholarly consensus that the first basmala is part of the Quran. Scholars differ regarding the Quran-ness of other basmala's..................The official position of the Hanafi school is that the basmala at the beginning of suras is a verse of the Quran, but that it is a single verse that was revealed once and assigned as a separator between suras. [2] The Shafi`i school also holds that the basmala at the beginning of suras is a verse of the Quran, but differs from the Hanafi school by holding that each basmala is actually the first verse of the sura that it commences, not merely for separation***END QUOTE

This sunni website claims that Shafi’i schools regard Basmallah as genuine direct verse from Allah in EVERY SURA (except Sura At-Tawbah).

However Hanafi school regards basmalla as genuine direct verse from Allah ONLY in Sura al-Naml . Strangely, in ambiguous way Hanafis accept basmallah verse at the beginning of every sura(except sura at tawbah)not as part of the surah itself but as separator between surahs. The Hanafis think , basmallah verse in Surah al-Naml has been assigned by Allah to be some sort of marker that marks the beginning of every Surah ( except Sura at-Tawbah)

The reason why I consider Hanafi school as ambiguous :
(1)The Hanafis break the foremost principal of Quran which is, EVERY WORD IN QURAN IS DIRECT WORD FROM ALLAH, since Hanafis believe basmallah verse in OTHER THAN SURAH al-Naml IS NOT DIRECT WORD FROM ALLAH then their quran obviously is a mix between direct word &indirect word of Allah.

(2)EVERY DIRECT SINGLE WORD of Allah is sacred ,so if the Shafii school was right then the Hanafis would be rejecting 113 sacred verses from Allah , this means blasphemy in islam. On the other hand if Hanafis was right then it would be the Shafiis turn to commit blasphemy by adding 113 verses to Quran.

Continue the quotation from sunnipath

Carlos said...

Part 2

Quotation from Sunnipath ( )

QUOTE****The dissenting school on this issue is actually the Maliki school. Scholars of legal methodology ascribe the position of the non-Quran-ness of these 113 basmala's to the great Maliki jurist and theologian, Abu Bakr al-Baqillani, who--like the Hanafis--held that these basmala's were inscribed in copies of the Quran for separation but--unlike the Hanafis--that they are not Quranic verses. **** END QUOTE

Now, the matter gets more interesting !

The Maliki school although agree with Hanafi in putting basmala as marker at the beginning of every surah, BUT THEY REJECT THE QURAN-NESS OF BASMALAH VERSE !! try to explain the reason why:
QUOTE*****What, then, did Abu Bakr al-Baqillani mean when he denied the Quran-ness of these basmala's? Ghazali explains in his Mustasfa that Baqillani "acknowledged that the basmala was revealed to the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) with the beginning of every sura [5], and that it was inscribed with the Quran in the same script as the rest of the Quran [6] by the command of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace)," but that "it is not impossible for non-Quranic revelation to be revealed to [the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace)]." ****END QUOTE

Please give attention to the sentence “IT IS NOT IMPOSSIBLE for non-Quranic revelation to be revealed to the Prophet *Allah bless him and give him peace”

Those sentence clearly means Ghazali wasn’t sure on his ‘hypothesis’in explaining why the Malikis reject the Quran-ness of basmalah verse in 113 Surahs.

The only obvious conclusion that we can find from those explanation is the Malikis seem to regard basmalah verse on 113 suras as some kind of Hadith & not Quranic .

Summary :

-Madhab of Shafii: Basmallah is direct word of Allah contains in every Surah in quran (except Sura at tawba), so if they were wrong then they would commit the sin of adding non- Quranic word (113 verses) to Quran

- Madhab of Hanafi: Basmallah is not part of ANY SURAH (except Surah al-Naml) , basmallah functions just as marker at beginning of fatiha and separator between suras. This means Hanafis have deliberately mixed the non direct Word of Allah with the direct word of Allah , Oddly no serious complain from other madhabs (Hanbali & Shafii)

- Madhab of Maliki: almost the same with Hanafis yet they take it further by downgrading basmallah verse in 113 surahs from Quranic to some sort of Hadith verse while maintaining them to be written in Quran . So clearly Quran in Maliki version consist of non-Quranic & Quranic verses.

Seeing all of these, in saying no discrepancies in Quran, is such a hypocritical statement at its best

R S Roudh said...

The other “proof” that the Quran gives for itself is that no one can reproduce its eloquence. Yet no one in Islamic history has ever been better placed than Muhammad’s Meccan contemporaries to judge the validity of this claim because it was in their dialect that the Quran was “revealed”. So what was their verdict?

Quran 68:15 When Our Verses (of the Qur-an) are recited to him, he says: "Tales of the men of old!"
The Meccans accused Muhammad of plagiarizing.

Quran 16:101 And when We change a Verse [of the Qur-an, i.e. cancel (abrogate) its order] in place of another, and Allah knows the best of what He sends down, they (the disbelievers) say: "You are but a Muftari! (forger, liar)." Nay, but most of them know not.

When they saw contradictions in his Quran they accused him of fabricating.

Quran :103 And indeed We know that they (polytheists and pagans) say: "It is only a human being who teaches him." The tongue of the man they refer to is foreign, while this (the Qur-an) is a clear Arabic tongue.
The Meccans accused Muhammad of borrowing.

There can be no dispute that the Meccans were the best judge there has ever been of Muhammad’s challenge of “Produce a Surah like it”. There can also be no dispute that the majority of these Meccans rejected Muhammad’s claim of “Unsurpassable Eloquence” as false.