Well it proves that the chinese can write their asses off doesn't it. (Loved all of your examples by the way, good literature all over the world).

In this clip from a debate, you can listen to a Muslim speaker (Jamal Badawi) discussing this topic starting from 18:55 and onwards:



To state my own views regarding this argument:

The miracle of the Quran is not that it cannot be imitated by anyone else, but that Muhammad was illiterate and that there is no indication that he had lessons from someone else on linguistic/literary, historical, theological, and/or scientific fields of study, and yet he came up with a book that no one could re-produce or make something similar to it. So, for people at that time, the Quran was a miracle. When the Arabs heard the revelation recited, they became overwhelmed and even jealous by the literary beauty of the Quranic verses. They couldn't believe how an illiterate man could write something like that all by himself. Even today, most of the Quranic scholars and experts consider the literary aspect of the Quran to be something amazing while knowing the fact that Muhammad was not a trained poet nor was he able to read.

However, I do think that some Muslims exaggerate this argument by implying as if this is a "conclusive proof" of the Quran's divinity. Like padraic pointed out, this is a logical fallacy because not being able to reproduce or imitate a part of text doesn't necessarily mean that it cannot be ever done. One may just say that this is a mildly or a fairly interesting argument for the Quran, or something that strengthens the Quran's claims, but it would be unreasonable to use this argument as a conclusive evidence.

Joseph Smith is claimed to have been illiterate as well. The Miracle of the Book of Mormon!
(comes out in the wash that he may not have been illiterate, but that he did use ghostwriters..lol)

(November 10, 2011 at 3:07 pm)apophenia Wrote: I recently attended a debate with a Muslim scholar who made this argument. It's full of holes. First, how do you measure how "like" one example of literature is to another? There is no objective way, and if you depend on the subjective testimony, then non-Muslims will find plenty "similar" and Muslims none at all. So surely, the sura is in the mind of the beholder. This being the case, it becomes a case of, "I believe, thus be it so." In that case, the Quran is just serving as a middleman for blind faith. The second problem is how to eliminate confirmation bias. If you believe the Quran inimitable, everything you see is unlike it, and every sura unique. Finally is the question of what is meant by similar. In the thinking of Heidegger is the notion that there is sameness in difference and difference in sameness. If there weren't similars in two things, they could not be compared, having no common properties; and the Quran and other "differents" certainly have "similars" -- derived from a human language, poetic, prosodic, argumentative, easily situated hermeneutically, etc. But there is also difference in sameness -- two things, no matter how alike, must differ, or be mistaken for the same thing, an identity; difference in spatial location, difference in theme, in audience, in tropes. So how does one measure the sameness in difference in the Quran, and the difference in sameness amongst its sura, without hopelessly falling into subjectivity and rendering your argument vacuous? Muslims try by pointing out how the forms of Arabic literature prior to that time differ from the form of the Quran. Does this prove that it is unique, rather than either simply innovative or poorly written? No. And if it's simply innovative, we have good reason to think that it stands alone not due to the impossibility of copying, but due to the unwillingness of Muslims to do so. Who better than a Muslim scholar to do so? And who less likely to do so?

Well the Quran is very unlike all Arabic literature. It doesn't resemble the poetry of Arabs. The scholars actually came with this objective criteria showing it's very different from all styles out there.

Quote:Indeed, I would say that both the Tao Te Ching and Sun Tzu's Art Of War are inimitable. What does that prove? Nothing.

You bring a good point. But Muslims argue it's not simply about the content, but it's style that is totally different from all forms of literature. Is this the case with these two writings? Or is it similar to others books but just different subjects?

Quote:Next time a Muslim presents you with this argument, demand they produce an original chapter of the Art Of War in classical Chinese.
Let me know your results.

Of course they wouldn't be able to because they don't know Chinese.

---

(November 10, 2011 at 4:56 pm)Rayaan Wrote: However, I do think that some Muslims exaggerate this argument by implying as if this is a "conclusive proof" of the Quran's divinity. Like padraic pointed out, this is a logical fallacy because not being able to reproduce or imitate a part of text doesn't necessarily mean that it cannot be ever done. One may just say that this is a mildly or a fairly interesting argument for the Quran, or something that strengthens the Quran's claims, but it would be unreasonable to use this argument as a conclusive evidence.

Well it's not Muslims that are making this claim on their own, the Quran basically says if your truthful of Quran being fabricated, you should bring a chapter like it. In other words, the only way to assert Quran is untrue, is to bring a chapter like it.

So if it's not conclusive evidence of it being true, then there is a problem with Quran being true at all.

---

Rayaan, I'm wondering how similar you think the following Surah is to Suratal Kaffiroon.

Quick! Somebody call the goalpost police! Another set of goalposts is not where they're supposed to be!

(November 10, 2011 at 4:57 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: Well it's not Muslims that are making this claim on their own, the Quran basically says if your truthful of Quran being fabricated, you should bring a chapter like it. In other words, the only way to assert Quran is untrue, is to bring a chapter like it.

I think this was revealed as a challenge for the Arabs who were doubting the truthfulness of the Quran. They were thinking that Muhammad was secretly plagiarizing from somewhere or thought that he was lying and that he actually knew how to read and write beautiful poetry. But they couldn't find any evidence of that. Furthermore, no one could even write a chapter similar to the Quranic style. So, I think the Quran is only saying that if you can't emulate the Quran, even after knowing the Arabic language, then this is an argument against all the people who used to say that Muhammad was the author of the Quran. It doesn't have to mean that that the Quran is definitely true if this cannot be done. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's my understanding of that particular verse.

(November 10, 2011 at 4:57 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: Now the thing is the Quran says Unjust as in hell while believers are in heaven, so saying "thalimoon" excludes believers. However, if it bothers you can substitute "Kaffiroon" for it, but I didn't want to put it, because it can be argued it's copying a line from Suratal Kafferoon.

Sorry, I didn't understand what is your point exactly. I mean, why would I want to substitute a different word for "thalimoon"? Just to make it rhyme or something?

(November 10, 2011 at 5:40 pm)Rayaan Wrote: Sorry, I didn't understand what is your point exactly. I mean, why would I want to substitute a different word for "thalimoon"? To make it rhyme or something?

No it was because it could've been argued thalimoon includes believers, but I wanted to show it doesn't.

(November 10, 2011 at 4:56 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Joseph Smith is claimed to have been illiterate as well. The Miracle of the Book of Mormon!
(comes out in the wash that he may not have been illiterate, but that he did use ghostwriters..lol)

I didn't know that, but it certainly explains a lot about his appalling book,which I would not compare as literature with either the Torah or the Qur'an.

PLUS, looking at the history of the LDS, smith comes across as a deliberate fraud. Neither the Old Testament prophets nor Muhammud have ever given me that impression.

(November 9, 2011 at 11:58 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: This gives the notion that Quran being unique without no one being able to replicate it implies it's divine?

To replicate means to make an exact copy , to reproduce, to copy. It is easy to replicate any documents. We can use photocopier, scanner, offset printers, e.t.c.

Bring a Surah like it. This statement indicates you to bring something that looks exactly like it. Easy. Just bring a copy of a quran. The argument 'bring a surah like it' is not a sound argument to claim that quran is divine. There is no such thing as divine. There is no God. Many religions claim their scriptures is sacred and there is nothing like it. You have to photocopy them if you want to replicate them.

That statement was given to Mohamed's people who were poets and disbelievers at the same time. At that time poetry was popular and poets were competing to create the most beautiful poetry in competitions. Of course they can not make anything that resembles the quran, a scripture which promotes hatred and killing and threatens the disbelievers to go to hell. Big deal. Bully the disbelieving poets that they're going to go to hell and for extra bullying, challenge them to repeat/reproduce what the quran is saying ("go to hell you disbelivers").

That statement is just a method of bullying.

Does a disbeliever who spends all of his life feeding poor people in Africa deserve to go to hell? The supposedly divine quran says so.

If someone ask me to bring a surah like it, I'd say how come this disbeliever is more benevolent than your divine god? This disbeliever feed millions of poor people in Africa and he funds research to combat disease there! How come your divine god is more cruel than this disbeliever? that your god ask you to kill this disbeliever and other millions of disbelievers in the world and send them to hell? Why should I try to replicate surahs that promote hatred, killings and cause misery to human beings? How come this disbelievers save more lives than your divine god? Which is more divine? your god or this disbeliever? Before I accept your challenge to replicate the quran, I want to challenge you back: Feed millions of hungry people in Africa and around the world just like what this disbeliever does, instead of killing human beings all the time.