Lets Debunk some Islamic arguments · Liberty Politics Discussion

Lets Debunk some Islamic arguments

☪️1. Classical (Fus'ha) Arabic vs. Modern/Day-to-Day Arabic

Islamic view: The Quran's preservation in its original form (including recitation rules/tawjid) keeps the divine text intact. Modern dialects evolved naturally (human process), but the Quran's language was chosen for its precision and eloquence at revelation. Translations convey meaning but lose layers, that's why Muslims emphasize learning Classical Arabic for deeper study, not because the message is Arabic-only.

Counterpoint: This evolution shows language is human and changes over time, supporting the idea that the Quran's "miraculous" preservation is due to cultural/religious effort (memorization, standardization under Uthman) rather than divine intervention alone.

☪️2. Other Religious Languages (Greek, Chinese, Japanese, etc.) Still Survive

Islamic view: Preservation isn't "divine ordination" in a magical sense but part of God's promise (Quran 15:9: "We have sent down the Reminder and We will preserve it"). Humans (hafiz, scholars) are the means.

Counterpoint: Survival is human-driven (e.g., religious institutions, printing, education). Many ancient languages died despite sacred texts. This doesn't disprove divinity but shows preservation relies on human factors. Biblical Hebrew (revived), Koine Greek (New Testament), Classical Chinese (Daoist/Confucian texts), Sanskrit (Hindu/Vedic). Classical Arabic survived due to the Quran's centrality in worship, scholarship, and law, plus Arab cultural pride and institutions like madrasas not divinity.

☪️3. No Mention of Prophets Beyond Israelites in Abrahamic Religions?

The Bible (Old Testament) focuses heavily on Israelite prophets (Moses, Isaiah, etc.), with few exceptions (e.g., Balaam, Job possibly non-Israelite).

The Quran expands this: It names prophets sent to other peoples, e.g.:

Hud to 'Ad (Arab tribe)
Salih to Thamud (Arab tribe)
Shu'ayb to Midian
Lut (Lot) to his people (non-Israelite context)

Quran 16:36: "We sent to every nation a messenger..." and 35:24: "There is no people but a warner has passed among them." It implies thousands of prophets (hadith: 124,000 total), most unnamed, to all humanity across time and places.

Counterpoint: Named non-Israelite prophets in Quran are mostly pre-Abrahamic or Arabian, not Chinese/Indian/etc. No direct mention of Buddha, Confucius, or Zoroaster as prophets. This can feel Arab-centric.

☪️4. If for All Mankind, Why Not One Prophet Who Translates or Multiple Revelations?

Islam says prophets were sent to every nation in their language (Quran 14:4), with Muhammad as the final, universal one (34:28). The Quran's message is universal, but its form is Arabic for the initial audience (as explained earlier).

Why not simultaneous/multiple final revelations? Islamic theology: God chose one final, preserved message to unify humanity under monotheism, avoiding fragmentation.

Counterpoint: A single prophet translating everywhere (or multiple simultaneous ones) could seem more "efficient" for a global God. The historical Arab focus feels tied to 7th-century context.

☪️5. Why Create So Many Languages? One Language (Arabic) Would Be Better

From Biblical perspective (Genesis 11, Tower of Babel): God confused languages to scatter proud humanity and prevent unified rebellion/sin. (0 evidence, new evidence show it was just a building which took the work of many people from different regions so they were confused by different languages. No proof of God changing their words and the tower was built.)

Quran has no Babel story; languages are part of God's signs (30:22: "Among His signs is the creation of the heavens and earth, and the variation of your languages and colors..."). Diversity is intentional for beauty, testing, and knowing one another.

Why not one language? Islamic scholars say variety fosters humility, travel, learning, and reliance on translation/understanding (mirroring life's tests). A single language might enable faster corruption (as in Babel interpretation).

Counterpoint: Multiple languages create barriers, misunderstandings, and cultural divisions which is seeming inefficient or cruel for a merciful God. One universal language would simplify global guidance.

☪️6. Arabic Existed "Only After 2000 Years Later" — Was Quran Created Before Creation?

Islamic view: The Quran is God's eternal speech (uncreated in essence, per mainstream Sunni theology). It wasn't "created" at revelation but manifested in time. God knows all languages eternally; Arabic was chosen when the Arabs were ready (eloquent, poetic peak).

Counterpoint: Arabic as a distinct language emerged around the 1st millennium BCE (Semitic family roots earlier). Quran was revealed in 7th century CE. If divine speech is timeless, why tie it to a late-emerging language? This ties revelation to human historical development.

☪️7. Religions Feel Man-Made, Reflecting Their Time

This is a core secular critique: Religions mirror sociology, politics, and knowledge of their eras (e.g., Quran addresses 7th-century Arabian issues like tribalism, idolatry).

Islamic response: Prophets address their people's specific needs while conveying timeless truths. Quran corrects earlier distortions (e.g., Trinity, crucifixion details) and completes the message.

Counterpoint: Lack of timeless universality (e.g., no anticipation of modern science/ethics explicitly, no evidence of prehistory either. Only known myths of the region is present in these books including The Quran). Thus this fact supports human origin.

☪️8. Linguistic Richness — Proven by Linguists or Anecdotal?

The "linguistic miracle" (i'jaz) claim centers on:

Rhythm, rhyme, concision (balagha)
Unique non-poetic/prose form
Depth of meaning in few words
Classical scholars like al-Jurjani (Dalail al-I'jaz) argued for unparalleled nazm (word arrangement).

Non-Muslim linguists rarely call it a "miracle" so, it's subjective. Western/Academic views (e.g., Theodor Nöldeke, Angelika Neuwirth) praise its style but see it as exceptional human literature from late

antiquity, with grammatical oddities or shifts explainable historically. No peer-reviewed consensus on objective "inimitable". proof criteria are aesthetic/theological, not scientific.

Muslim scholars provide detailed analyses, but critics say it's circular (Muslims judge it supreme, not neutral linguists).

☪️9. Challenge to Emulate — "True Furqan" and Who Judges?

Quran challenges: Produce a surah like it (2:23, 10:38, etc.).

"The True Furqan" (1999 Christian text mimicking style, promoting Trinity) was dismissed by most Arabic speakers/Muslims as poor imitation which had forced rhymes, contradictions, lacking depth/impact. Even some Christians saw it as weak. No widespread acceptance as equaling Quran.

But, Who judges it? The original challenge addressed Arabs expert in eloquence, Even if someone did met the challenge, early Muslims would have considered them enemies of Islam and eliminate them. Also, most likely nobody tried it.

Today, it's subjective: Beauty, coherence, transformative power.

If too similar → plagiarism/copy;

If different → fails.

Critics: Challenge is unfalsifiable so the goalposts move.

3 comments