Instigator / Con
0
1525
rating
23
debates
58.7%
won
Topic
#4977
Was the Quran a Product of Muhammad's Imagination or Divine Revelation?
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
After not so many votes...
It's a tie!
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- One day
- Max argument characters
- 3,000
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Pro
0
1492
rating
15
debates
50.0%
won
Description
pro: The Qur'an was divine revelation
con: The Qur'an was made up
round 1: Opening argument, pro represents evidence that its divine revelation, and con presents evidence that it was made up
round 2: Rebuttals Pro & Con will rebut their opponent's argument
round 3: Closing argument: Rebut your opponent's rebuttal and then address how you think the debate went.
Round 1
I would first like to thank Atoktheadvocate for accepting this debate, ill now move into my arguements.
How would we determine if it was made up?
Well I have only 1 simple test ill use to determine if its made up and that's if it has a contradiction or is inconsistent, this test is supported by the Quran itself in surah 4 verse 82 which says
Do they not then reflect on the Quran? Had it been from anyone other than Allah, they would have certainly found in it many inconsistencies.
So all I need to do is prove one thing that's inconsistent / a contradiction
Is the Quran Fully detailed and cleared?
Well the quran says that its a fully explained book in surah 12 verse 111 which says:
In their stories there is truly a lesson for people of reason. This message cannot be a fabrication, rather ˹it is˺ a confirmation of previous revelation, a detailed explanation of all things, a guide, and a mercy for people of faith.
Other verses elaborate this same message like 16:89, 41:3, 10:37, 6:114.
But Surah 3 verse 7 tells a different story;
It is He who sent down upon thee the Book, wherein are verses clear that are the Essence of the Book, and others ambiguous. As for those in whose hearts is swerving, they follow the ambiguous part, desiring dissension, and desiring its interpretation; and none knows its interpretation, save only God. And those firmly rooted in knowledge say, ‘We believe in it; all is from our Lord’; yet none remembers, but men possessed of minds.
This is a clear contradiction which would - by my test and the Quran's standard - make it not be divine revelation.
Can Allah's words be altered?
Surah 6 verse 34 clearly says Allah's words cant be altered;
And, indeed, messengers have been belied before you, but they stood patient against their being belied, and they were tortured until Our help came to them. And no one can change the words of Allah, and of course, there have come to you some accounts of the messengers.
6:114-115 also shares the same message
but surah 2 verse 106 says:
None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that God Hath power over all things?
13:39, 16:101 also share the same message.
Conclusion:
Id also like to point out the lack of evidence for it being divine, I just pointed out 2 very clear contradictions in the Quran and I await to see my opponent's evidence.
Thank you for having me here, SethBrown.
If I am operating under the assumption that the Quran is divine in nature, there are many reasons why the Quran's consistency is not worthy of being a determining factor in whether or not it was product of a revelation from Allah to Muhammed.
"But Surah 3 verse 7 tells a different story;
It is He who sent down upon thee the Book, wherein are verses clear that are the Essence of the Book, and others ambiguous. As for those in whose hearts is swerving, they follow the ambiguous part, desiring dissension, and desiring its interpretation; and none knows its interpretation, save only God. And those firmly rooted in knowledge say, ‘We believe in it; all is from our Lord’; yet none remembers, but men possessed of minds."
The script you cited as the reasoning for why it is imaginative in nature is the same reasoning for why it can not be proved to be imaginative.
Even Muhammed, a prophet of Allah, can NOT know the mind of Allah. He can know what was revealed to him, but he can only do his best to translate the revelation to language decipherable by himself, and by other humans.
If Allah is the all-knowing omniscient being, and only he is perfect, then any translation or interpretation of a revelation from Allah WILL be imperfect in nature.
Followers can trust that Muhammed does his best to make the revelation understandable to others, and that he was the best person for the job, if they believe in Allah and his ability to reveal divinity to a prophet.
They can also trust that Allah's revelation was true and perfect in nature. But what simply cannot be truly trusted is the translation from divinity to human understanding. Even if Allah reveals all the divine truth to Muhammed, Muhammed is susceptible to outside influence, as he is an imperfect being.
Surah (3:144) Muhammad is no more than a Messenger, and Messengers have passed away before him.
Divine revelations may be totally and unfathomably divine. The nature of the revelation does not necessarily mean that the translation of this revelation will be perfect in nature, only that the messenger is doing the best they can, with the influences they have in the world.
Round 2
If I am operating under the assumption that the Quran is divine in nature, there are many reasons why the Quran's consistency is not worthy of being a determining factor in whether or not it was product of a revelation from Allah to Muhammed.
Well the idea was that you would provide evidence for it being divine, but sure I dont mind going forward with that for argument's sake. But why would the Quran's consistency not be a factor when the Quran itself says that its consistency proves that its of allah?
The script you cited as the reasoning for why it is imaginative in nature is the same reasoning for why it can not be proved to be imaginative.
Well thats a rather self-defeating idea, the verse I cited is the reasoning for why its imaginative in nature is the same reasoning for why it can not be proved to be imaginative. In saying that the verse is the reason for why its imaginative, you cant conclude from that, that it cant be proven to be imaginative, its a non-sequitur in a way.
Even Muhammed, a prophet of Allah, can NOT know the mind of Allah. He can know what was revealed to him, but he can only do his best to translate the revelation to language decipherable by himself, and by other humans.
even if we grant this I don't think it resolves the contradiction as other verses still say its clear.
If Allah is the all-knowing omniscient being, and only he is perfect, then any translation or interpretation of a revelation from Allah WILL be imperfect in nature.Followers can trust that Muhammed does his best to make the revelation understandable to others, and that he was the best person for the job, if they believe in Allah and his ability to reveal divinity to a prophet.
Well not necessarily, we cant literally peer into the mind of Allah, but we can still record what he taught, Allah said to allow pagans to convert, we cant know the exact reasoning for this but we can still know the intent of his words, to be forgiving and we can also understand what he wants us to do.
They can also trust that Allah's revelation was true and perfect in nature. But what simply cannot be truly trusted is the translation from divinity to human understanding. Even if Allah reveals all the divine truth to Muhammed, Muhammed is susceptible to outside influence, as he is an imperfect being.
Well the Quran itself confirms the gospels (surah 3 verse 3) now these specific gospels were given to Isa who was sinless and not susceptible to outside influence, so therefore we should conclude the Quran should be perfect as well.
Divine revelations may be totally and unfathomably divine. The nature of the revelation does not necessarily mean that the translation of this revelation will be perfect in nature, only that the messenger is doing the best they can, with the influences they have in the world.
I agree but the Quran still rejects inconsistencies; if present, it's not from Allah and should be discredited.
Divine revelation is personal in nature, and there is not a necessity for imagination to be separate from divine revelation.
If the imagination is used to reveal something divine, does that then make the revelation less real?
If the entire world is based upon your perception of it, then there is no proof that you aren't imagining everything you see.
Following this logic, anything and everything is imaginative, including any evidence, scripture, even the language we are using to convey our thoughts.
Our thoughts themselves are imagined by ourself.
To prove that Muhammed was revealed something divine, and that the Quran is product of that divine revelation, does not necessitate proof of it not originating within imagination.
If all perceptions, including thoughts themselves are imagination, and Allah revealed himself to Muhammed, then it absolutely is a product of imagination. But it is the product of divine imagination, through commune with Allah.
Define the difference between imaginative and divine. Define the difference between what happens within the mind and what happens within the world.
If there is world that you have learned to traverse with your mind and spirit, where you can meet with the creator of the Universe, does that world become unreal due to it's lack of being seen by others? Or do they simply lack the understanding to see what is there?
Are scientists findings not founded in science because a carpenter can't understand the equations?
Is a man's relationship with the Universe imagination because you can't personally conceive the same experience?
When you awake from a dream, was the dream imagination?
If so, then know you are still dreaming.
Round 3
Divine revelation is personal in nature, and there is not a necessity for imagination to be separate from divine revelation.If the imagination is used to reveal something divine, does that then make the revelation less real?
I probably should've been more clear what I meant by imagination, by that I just meant that he (muhammad) made it up, hence the position for con I put in the description, which is why contradictions is soo important for this conversations since the Quran gives it as a test for its own text.
If the entire world is based upon your perception of it, then there is no proof that you aren't imagining everything you see.Following this logic, anything and everything is imaginative, including any evidence, scripture, even the language we are using to convey our thoughts.
By definition we arent imagining it since imagination is "the the faculty or action of forming new ideas, or images or concepts of external objects not present to the senses:" Which would make it to where we cant be imagining everything since they are in our senses.
Our thoughts themselves are imagined by ourself.
Most certainty they are, I can agree with that.
To prove that Muhammed was revealed something divine, and that the Quran is product of that divine revelation, does not necessitate proof of it not originating within imagination.
Perhaps it doesn't but it would still necessitate proof for the positive, or else any thought could be divine revelation, even ideas contrary to the Islamic faith.
If all perceptions, including thoughts themselves are imagination, and Allah revealed himself to Muhammed, then it absolutely is a product of imagination. But it is the product of divine imagination, through commune with Allah.
This idea hinges on if everything is imagination which id disagree, but even ignoring that this would also allow any thought to be considered divine revelation which is problematic to say the least.
Define the difference between imaginative and divine. Define the difference between what happens within the mind and what happens within the world.
sure
Imagination - the faculty or action of forming new ideas, or images or concepts of external objects not present to the senses:
Divine - of, from, or like God or a god:
If there is world that you have learned to traverse with your mind and spirit, where you can meet with the creator of the Universe, does that world become unreal due to it's lack of being seen by others? Or do they simply lack the understanding to see what is there?
I would say they lack the understanding or just haven't seen it with their senses yet.
Are scientists findings not founded in science because a carpenter can't understand the equations?Is a man's relationship with the Universe imagination because you can't personally conceive the same experience?When you awake from a dream, was the dream imagination?If so, then know you are still dreaming.
Can you elaborate on how this is of relevance to our debate?
Forfeited
Apologies for forfeiture, been quite busy. Good debate.