Islam Quran fabricated or revealed?

[mindlight]

Uncorrupted Revelation by God or fabricated document?

Actually the evidence for fabrication is overwhelming:

1) Questionable ethics e.g. the equality of women (4 wives), wife beating (Sura 4:34), Mohammed had 12 wives, Muhammed sinned (Sura 40:55)

2) Factual errors: denial of crucifixion (Sura 4:157), view of the Trinity (as Father, Son and Mary)

3) Borrowed material: Many of the stories come from previous Christian sources including the bible. Sometimes these stories are distorted and changed.

4) Evidence of changes in the audit trail. e.g. Sana manuscript. Uthman destroyed most of the previous versions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sana'a_manuscript

5) Abrogation: e.g. regarding alcohol. Why would God keep changing his mind. Was the principle invented to resolve obvious contradictions in the text.

6) Satanic verses: parts of Mohammed revelation were he admitted inspired by Satan e.g. an affirmation of the 3 Meccan goddesses.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Quran

http://www.equip.org/article/is-the-quran-credible-2/

https://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/index.html

 

[Barney2.0]

You do know the original Quran written by Mohammed and complied by Abu Baker no longer exists, furthermore the Quran complied by Uthman has also not come down to us. As there’s no single complete manuscript that can be confirmed to date back to Uthman’s reign. There are also many Qurans (according to Imam Hafs, according to Imam Warsh etc), but where’s the Quran according to Mohammed, infact where’s the Quran according to any of the Sahaba instead of these Imams that came centuries later. The text itself is of questionable and anonymous origin.

 

[Yi-man]

Uncorrupted Revelation by God or fabricated document?

Actually the evidence for fabrication is overwhelming:

1) Questionable ethics e.g. the equality of women (4 wives), wife beating (Sura 4:34), Mohammed had 12 wives, Muhammed sinned (Sura 40:55)

2) Factual errors: denial of crucifixion (Sura 4:157), view of the Trinity (as Father, Son and Mary)

3) Borrowed material: Many of the stories come from previous Christian sources including the bible. Sometimes these stories are distorted and changed.

4) Evidence of changes in the audit trail. e.g. Sana manuscript. Uthman destroyed most of the previous versions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sana'a_manuscript

5) Abrogation: e.g. regarding alcohol. Why would God keep changing his mind. Was the principle invented to resolve obvious contradictions in the text.

6) Satanic verses: parts of Mohammed revelation were he admitted inspired by Satan e.g. an affirmation of the 3 Meccan goddesses.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Quran

http://www.equip.org/article/is-the-quran-credible-2/

https://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/index.html

I'm pretty sure you have been refuted on these or similar points in the past. You say the Crucifixion is a Historical fact. No it's not, in fact there is 0% of anyone rising from the dead after 3 days from the First Century, and this despite the FACT there were some dozen or so Historians and other notable writers, both Roman and Jewish in the area. Hidden documents found show Jesus pbuh was not crucified, and the internal contradictions even cast doubts on the 4 non eyewitness accounts found in the NT, with Scholars proving the anonymous authors of Matthew and Luke copied from Mark and a Q source. The unknown author of John writing his Gospel decades after the event says, the crucifixion was on a different day to the Synoptics. All sounds very historical :/

 

[mindlight]

I'm pretty sure you have been refuted on these or similar points in the past.

Sounds like wishful thinking.

You say the Crucifixion is a Historical fact. No it's not, in fact there is 0% of anyone rising from the dead after 3 days from the First Century, and this despite the FACT there were some dozen or so Historians and other notable writers, both Roman and Jewish in the area.

The consensus is against you here and outside the scriptures themselves we have references in Tacitus and Josephus for instance.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion_of_Jesus#Other_accounts_and_references

Hidden documents found show Jesus pbuh was not crucified,

Very well hidden accounts I have never heard of them. Can you give some examples.

and the internal contradictions even cast doubts on the 4 non eyewitness accounts found in the NT, with Scholars proving the anonymous authors of Matthew and Luke copied from Mark and a Q source. The unknown author of John writing his Gospel decades after the event says, the crucifixion was on a different day to the Synoptics. All sounds very historical :/

Right you clearly know nothing about the discussion of biblical authority but fortunately for you that is not what this thread is about.

 

[Barney2.0]

I'm pretty sure you have been refuted on these or similar points in the past. You say the Crucifixion is a Historical fact. No it's not, in fact there is 0% of anyone rising from the dead after 3 days from the First Century, and this despite the FACT there were some dozen or so Historians and other notable writers, both Roman and Jewish in the area. Hidden documents found show Jesus pbuh was not crucified, and the internal contradictions even cast doubts on the 4 non eyewitness accounts found in the NT, with Scholars proving the anonymous authors of Matthew and Luke copied from Mark and a Q source. The unknown author of John writing his Gospel decades after the event says, the crucifixion was on a different day to the Synoptics. All sounds very historical :/

There’s also zero evidence of Mohammed flying to Jerusalem in one night, all we have is the Islamic accounts of the story, so what’s your point? All historical sources say Jesus was crucified even the Jews and Romans who disbelieved in him say he was crucified, only some Gnostic sects believed that Jesus survived the crucifixtion and this belief was incorporated into Islam. The Gospel authors copying from each other isn’t an issue as there was no such thing such as intellectual property back then, furthermore it was quite common back then for authors to copy from other sources so we could get the right picture of what is going on in the account being told. There’s no evidence the Gospels are anonymous as there’s never been a time where they circulated without their respective titles.

The Quran however is untraceable, we don’t know who wrote it or when it was written. The Quran collected during Mohammed’s time and complied by Abu Bakr no longer exists, there’s also no complete manuscript that can exactly be confirmed to date back to Uthman’s era. The different Quran's (according to Imam Hafs, according to Imam Warsh, and etc) don’t match up with each other and incase you say it’s just dialect:

Example 1 - In Hafs we have:

And those who are killed in the cause of Allah - never will He waste their deeds.

In Warsh "qutiloo" is "qaataloo" giving us:

And those who fought in the cause of Allah - never will He waste their deeds.

Example 2 - in Hafs we have:

And how many a prophet [fought and] with him fought many religious scholars. But they never lost assurance due to what afflicted them in the cause of Allah , nor did they weaken or submit. And Allah loves the steadfast.

In Warsh qaatala changes to "qutila" (meaning also changes depending on the stop signs, I'll post it with the stop signs I have):

And how many a prophet was killed. With him were many religious scholars, but they never lost assurance due to what afflicted them in the cause of Allah , nor did they weaken or submit. And Allah loves the steadfast.

Example 3 - In Hafs we have:

He said, "My Lord knows whatever is said throughout the heaven and earth, and He is the Hearing, the Knowing."

In Warsh "qaala" becomes "qul":

Say, "My Lord knows whatever is said throughout the heaven and earth, and He is the Hearing, the Knowing."

Sometimes singular/plural changes:

Example 4 - In Hafs we have:

The Day when We will fold the heaven like the folding of a sheet for the records.

In Warsh "kitaab" becomes "kutub":

The Day when We will fold the heaven like the folding of sheets for the records.

It’s pretty obvious the evidence is against the Quran and proves it to be of anonymous origin.

 

[dzheremi]

I can't link it because for some reason he felt the need to insert a clip with a swear word in it into the video (I'm not a prude, I just don't want to get in trouble here), but the famous Egyptian atheist Sherif Gaber did a video under the English title "Facts You Don't Know About the Qur'an" in January that you can find on YouTube. It's about 50 minutes and goes into depth about some of the possible sources for the Qur'an, relying somewhat on Luxembourg's thesis that the Qur'an started out as a Christian worship book of some kind, originating from within the Syriac-speaking groups that had sought refuge in Arabia after being kicked out of the imperial Church some centuries earlier for their Ebionite-like beliefs (I can't remember at the moment whether Gaber says that they were actual Ebionites or not), but also drawing on classical sources like Theodor Nodelke and Arthur Jeffery, and of course the many Muslim commentators and Qur'anic dictionaries produced by the Muslim community.

The video is in Arabic, but you can turn the subtitles on for English. Despite the somewhat unfortunate editing style and choices on occasion, I would recommend this to anyone who would like to know this information from a native Arabic speaking Muslim (so that the common objections of "You don't know Arabic", or "That's not what it says" or similar things can't be used). Gaber seems very young, so perhaps he was going for a more 'hip' or 'edgy' style to draw in young people; it comes off to me like an MTV-style video, with too many quick cuts and little scenes shoved in between the different points, but the information itself is good.

 

[Barney2.0]

I can't link it because for some reason he felt the need to insert a clip with a swear word in it into the video (I'm not a prude, I just don't want to get in trouble here), but the famous Egyptian atheist Sherif Gaber did a video under the English title "Facts You Don't Know About the Qur'an" in January that you can find on YouTube. It's about 50 minutes and goes into depth about some of the possible sources for the Qur'an, relying somewhat on Luxembourg's thesis that the Qur'an started out as a Christian worship book of some kind, originating from within the Syriac-speaking groups that had sought refuge in Arabia after being kicked out of the imperial Church some centuries earlier for their Ebionite-like beliefs (I can't remember at the moment whether Gaber says that they were actual Ebionites or not), but also drawing on classical sources like Theodor Nodelke and Arthur Jeffery, and of course the many Muslim commentators and Qur'anic dictionaries produced by the Muslim community.

The video is in Arabic, but you can turn the subtitles on for English. Despite the somewhat unfortunate editing style and choices on occasion, I would recommend this to anyone who would like to know this information from a native Arabic speaking Muslim (so that the common objections of "You don't know Arabic", or "That's not what it says" or similar things can't be used). Gaber seems very young, so perhaps he was going for a more 'hip' or 'edgy' style to draw in young people; it comes off to me like an MTV-style video, with too many quick cuts and little scenes shoved in between the different points, but the information itself is good.

The Quran itself contains Syriac and Persian loan words within it, I am a believer in the theory of Arabs conquering the Middle East as Pagans before creating Islam from the many religions, sects, and cults they came into contact with.

 

[mindlight]

I can't link it because for some reason he felt the need to insert a clip with a swear word in it into the video (I'm not a prude, I just don't want to get in trouble here), but the famous Egyptian atheist Sherif Gaber did a video under the English title "Facts You Don't Know About the Qur'an" in January that you can find on YouTube. It's about 50 minutes and goes into depth about some of the possible sources for the Qur'an, relying somewhat on Luxembourg's thesis that the Qur'an started out as a Christian worship book of some kind, originating from within the Syriac-speaking groups that had sought refuge in Arabia after being kicked out of the imperial Church some centuries earlier for their Ebionite-like beliefs (I can't remember at the moment whether Gaber says that they were actual Ebionites or not), but also drawing on classical sources like Theodor Nodelke and Arthur Jeffery, and of course the many Muslim commentators and Qur'anic dictionaries produced by the Muslim community.

The video is in Arabic, but you can turn the subtitles on for English. Despite the somewhat unfortunate editing style and choices on occasion, I would recommend this to anyone who would like to know this information from a native Arabic speaking Muslim (so that the common objections of "You don't know Arabic", or "That's not what it says" or similar things can't be used). Gaber seems very young, so perhaps he was going for a more 'hip' or 'edgy' style to draw in young people; it comes off to me like an MTV-style video, with too many quick cuts and little scenes shoved in between the different points, but the information itself is good.

What a fantastic find. I got this from that:

The Arian/Ebionite origins to many Quranic themes is clear.

Gabers understanding of the original Arabic was fantastic. The idea of removing the punctuation to reveal (edited) the raw text and then looking to see how alternate punctuation would reveal the Syriac words or different meanings was a legitimate and interesting exercise.

No dots and punctuation in the original text (nor indeed for 100 years after the original time), explains some of the weirder "nonsense" phrases and in many cases reveals a Syriac Christian origin to the text. Indeed all the religious names and many religious concepts are copied from earlier Syriac Christian texts. Indeed the Qurans word for Christians (Nasara - which could only come from the Syriac as it was not used elsewhere). This would overthrow the Qurans own protestation that it is an Arabic book, inspired in Arabic and reveals the borrowed sub text.

It seems also that the text we have today has been heavily interpreted and could in fact be a distortion on the original even if we accept the underlying raw version revealed by the removal of the punctuation marks that have been added. It also explains the reluctance to translate a book which does not really make sense in Arabic let alone other languages.

One of his more amusing revelations was that the word Quran itself is derived from the Syriac word Qurian which means "liturgical Christian book". That the Quran mentions Jesus 36 times and Muhammed (or is it Ahmed!) only 4 times (and in ways that could mean that even these references were meant to refer to Jesus) seems to support this view. Inscriptions on coins, with a cross on the other side, from the period support the view that Mohammed was a praise phrase referring to Christ.

Much of the story content of the Quran can also be found in earlier texts like the bible, Mishnan Sanhedrin etc

The Quran itself is actually poorly written filled with intimidating phrases and threats by comparison with the bible. It jumps from subject to subject without literary sense. It contains numerous examples of meaningless repetition. It seems to be missing parts referred to it in Haddith which must have been deleted afterwards or changed e.g. on the stoning of adulterer, breastfeeding adults 10 times then god changed his mind and made it 5 and then the verses were lost. 2 Surahs were removed from the Quran by Othman and up to 500 more verses many have been.

It appears the process of collecting the verses from written (on animal skins) and oral records, and then punctuation and deletions took some 50-100 years. But then many of the original sources were burned at the time the Quran was being collected into its finalised versions. The Quran is not mentioned in non Muslim sources until about 170 years after the birth of Islam and after many of the lands of Islam had been conquered. It seems that Abdel Malik may have further altered the collections and burnt contradictory copies.

Abdel Maleks version was also changed. The Sana manuscript contains signs of alteration with additional verses (5 verses have been removed - 4 added) and innumerable changes. So we do not have a final version of the Quran until the Abbasids.

(Edited one word - changed remove to reveal which was original meaning)

 

[mindlight]

The Quran itself contains Syriac and Persian loan words within it, I am a believer in the theory of Arabs conquering the Middle East as Pagans before creating Islam from the many religions, sects, and cults they came into contact with.

That would not really contradict Gabers findings which talk about the heavy redacting of the Quran by Othman and Abdel Malik for example for political purposes and long after the event. The borrowing from Syriac Christian sources seems blatantly clear.

 

[Yi-man]

The consensus is against you here and outside the scriptures themselves we have references in Tacitus and Josephus for instance.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion_of_Jesus#Other_accounts_and_references[/quote]

Before we look at these external references, here's what we can reasonably agree upon...

The Jews conspired to have Jesus pbuh crucified.

Jesus pbuh was given the ability to move at fast speeds, through walls and change his appearance including facial features.

Jesus pbuh stayed up all night praying to GOD, sweated tears of blood asking to be saved from the cross.

All his disciples abandoned him.

Jesus the 'Messiah' pbuh was jailed alongside a murderer, (deserving of crucifixion) called Jesus the 'Son of the Father'.

Pontius Pilate's wife warned her husband not to harm Jesus the Messiah due to 'bad omens she received from GOD via dreams'.

A man called Simon of Cyrene carried the cross.

The crucifixion lasted from 3 to 9 hours depending on which Gospel you read.

A darkness fell over the land and powerful Earthquakes shook the ground, adding to the confusion on the ground.

Here are the incredible points related to the crucifixion found in the Gospels:

God in the flesh proclaimed he had come to die for the sins of the World
God in the flesh was crucified
An earthquake struck nearby and was felt by everyone
Dead Saints rose from their graves and walked amongst the living
God in the flesh rose from the dead after 3 days

So in light of the above let's look at the first account from outside of the Bible.

Tacitus

Non eyewitness account writing some 85 years after the alleged events writes:

"Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus."

Nothing here about a god man on Earth or resurrection, no dead walking, no earthquake, nothing remarkable. Doesn't even tell us anything about the person said to be their leader either. Just that someone suffered an extreme penalty, likely crucifixion. I'm not sure how this makes Jesus pbuh being crucified in 33 A.D. a 'historical' fact?

Can you show me 'The Annals' dated approx 116 A.D. so I can check to see if it was translated correctly?

 

[Barney2.0]

It seems God turned Jesus into super man in his final hours, well if you believe the Islamic account of the story that is. Here’s more proof of the crucifixtion of Jesus by non Christians throughout history:

 

[Barney2.0]

What a fantastic find. I got this from that:

The Arian/Ebionite origins to many Quranic themes is clear.

Gabers understanding of the original Arabic was fantastic. The idea of removing the punctuation to remove the raw text and then looking to see how alternate punctuation would reveal the Syriac words or different meanings was a legitimate and interesting exercise.

No dots and punctuation in the original text (nor indeed for 100 years after the original time), explains some of the weirder "nonsense" phrases and in many cases reveals a Syriac Christian origin to the text. Indeed all the religious names and many religious concepts are copied from earlier Syriac Christian texts. Indeed the Qurans word for Christians (Nasara - which could only come from the Syriac as it was not used elsewhere). This would overthrow the Qurans own protestation that it is an Arabic book, inspired in Arabic and reveals the borrowed sub text.

It seems also that the text we have today has been heavily interpreted and could in fact be a distortion on the original even if we accept the underlying raw version revealed by the removal of the punctuation marks that have been added. It also explains the reluctance to translate a book which does not really make sense in Arabic let alone other languages.

One of his more amusing revelations was that the word Quran itself is derived from the Syriac word Qurian which means "liturgical Christian book". That the Quran mentions Jesus 36 times and Muhammed (or is it Ahmed!) only 4 times (and in ways that could mean that even these references were meant to refer to Jesus) seems to support this view. Inscriptions on coins, with a cross on the other side, from the period support the view that Mohammed was a praise phrase referring to Christ.

Much of the story content of the Quran can also be found in earlier texts like the bible, Mishnan Sanhedrin etc

The Quran itself is actually poorly written filled with intimidating phrases and threats by comparison with the bible. It jumps from subject to subject without literary sense. It contains numerous examples of meaningless repetition. It seems to be missing parts referred to it in Haddith which must have been deleted afterwards or changed e.g. on the stoning of adulterer, breastfeeding adults 10 times then god changed his mind and made it 5 and then the verses were lost. 2 Surahs were removed from the Quran by Othman and up to 500 more verses many have been.

It appears the process of collecting the verses from written (on animal skins) and oral records, and then punctuation and deletions took some 50-100 years. But then many of the original sources were burned at the time the Quran was being collected into its finalised versions. The Quran is not mentioned in non Muslim sources until about 170 years after the birth of Islam and after many of the lands of Islam had been conquered. It seems that Abdel Malik may have further altered the collections and burnt contradictory copies.

Abdel Maleks version was also changed. The Sana manuscript contains signs of alteration with additional verses (5 verses have been removed - 4 added) and innumerable changes. So we do not have a final version of the Quran until the Abbasids.

My advice to anyone that claims the Quran was and is pure Arabic is to look at the dictionary contained within their Quran, if it has one or go online to the Quranic dictionary, you’ll find many foreign phrases or loan words which have no place in the Arabic language.

 

[Barney2.0]

That would not really contradict Gabers findings which talk about the heavy redacting of the Quran by Othman and Abdel Malik for example for political purposes and long after the event. The borrowing from Syriac Christian sources seems blatantly clear.

Not saying it would contradict Gaber, he’s absolutely right on a Syriac source for the Quran.

 

[dzheremi]

I personally think that the link between Syriac and Arabic can be a bit overstated in some contexts, since it would make sense that the names, religious terminology, etc. would be similar because Syriac and Arabic are after all related languages (I can understand a fair bit of liturgical Syriac even from just the small amount of academic Arabic study and naturalistic learning I've done, as the parallels are very regular and obvious: qurbono ~ qurban, shubho ~ subhan, qashisho ~ qasis, kthobo qadisho ~ kitab el muqaddis, etc.), but the repetition of phrases in the Qur'an itself about its being "pure Arabic" as pointed out by Gaber (and not only him) does beg the question as to what it is trying to prove or cover up. As he says, you don't find the New Testament repeating over and over "This is pure Greek", so to the non-Muslim (or the thinking Muslim...) this sounds really bizarre.

 

[Yi-man]

As he says, you don't find the New Testament repeating over and over "This is pure Greek", so to the non-Muslim (or the thinking Muslim...) this sounds really bizarre.

It says something similar only once in the whole Qur'an:

[26:195] In a perfect Arabic tongue.

 

[dzheremi]

In those exact words, yes (well, almost yes...there is one more case of it being "clear Arabic", in 16:103, given below). But "similar"? No. In truth, the Qur'an is obsessed with its own Arabic-ness, which is the point of Gaber's statement to begin with (not that it says those exact words, because of course the parallel is that the Bible doesn't talk like that about itself that way at all, so by comparison, again, the Qur'an just seems weird).

Surat al-Nahil (16:103)

wa hatha lisan 'arabi mubeen = And this is clear Arabic

Sahih International: And We certainly know that they say, "It is only a human being who teaches the Prophet." The tongue of the one they refer to is foreign, and this Qur'an is [in] a clear Arabic language.

Pickthall: And We know well that they say: Only a man teacheth him. The speech of him at whom they falsely hint is outlandish, and this is clear Arabic speech.

Yusuf Ali: We know indeed that they say, "It is a man that teaches him." The tongue of him they wickedly point to is notably foreign, while this is Arabic, pure and clear.

Shakir: And certainly We know that they say: Only a mortal teaches him. The tongue of him whom they reproach is barbarous, and this is clear Arabic tongue.

Muhammad Sarwar: We know that they say a mere mortal has taught it (the Quran) to him (Muhammad). The language of the person whom they think has taught it to him is not Arabic. This (the Quran) is in illustrious Arabic.

Mohsin Khan: And indeed We know that they (polytheists and pagans) say: "It is only a human being who teaches him (Muhammad SAW)." The tongue of the man they refer to is foreign, while this (the Quran) is a clear Arabic tongue.

Arberry: And We know very well that they say, 'Only a mortal is teaching him.' The speech of him at whom they hint is barbarous; and this is speech Arabic, manifest.

Surat Youssef (12:2)

Inna anzalnahu qur'anan 'arabiyan = We have sent (it) down as an Arabic Qur'an

Sahih International: Indeed, We have sent it down as an Arabic Qur'an that you might understand.

Pickthall: Lo! We have revealed it, a Lecture in Arabic, that ye may understand.

Yusuf Ali: We have sent it down as an Arabic Qur'an, in order that ye may learn wisdom.

Shakir: Surely We have revealed it-- an Arabic Quran-- that you may understand.

Muhammad Sarwar: We have revealed it in the Arabic language so that you (people) would understand it.

Mohsin Khan: Verily, We have sent it down as an Arabic Quran in order that you may understand.

Arberry: We have sent it down as an Arabic Koran; haply you will understand.

Surat Ta Ha (20:113)

Wa kathalika anzalnahu qur'anan 'arabiyan = And thus we have sent (it) down as an Arabic Qur'an

Sahih International: And thus We have sent it down as an Arabic Qur'an and have diversified therein the warnings that perhaps they will avoid [sin] or it would cause them remembrance.

Pickthall: Thus we have revealed it as a Lecture in Arabic, and have displayed therein certain threats, that peradventure they may keep from evil or that it may cause them to take heed.

Yusuf Ali: Thus have We sent this down - an arabic Qur'an - and explained therein in detail some of the warnings, in order that they may fear Allah, or that it may cause their remembrance (of Him).

Shakir: And thus have We sent it down an Arabic Quran, and have distinctly set forth therein of threats that they may guard (against evil) or that it may produce a reminder for them.

Muhammad Sarwar: We have revealed the Quran in the Arabic language containing various warnings so that it may cause them to have fear (of God) or take heed.

Mohsin Khan: And thus We have sent it down as a Quran in Arabic, and have explained therein in detail the warnings, in order that they may fear Allah, or that it may cause them to have a lesson from it (or to have the honour for believing and acting on its teachings).

Arberry: Even so We have sent it down as an Arabic Koran, and We have turned about in it something of threats, that haply they may be godfearing, or it may arouse in them remembrance.

etc., etc.

The nominal adjective form 'arabiyan "(in) Arabic" apparently occurs 10 times in the Qur'an itself, usually but not always with reference to itself, and not always in the exact form that you are talking about, e.g., in Surat al-Ahqaf (46:12), it says وَهَٰذَا كِتَابٌ مُصَدِّقٌ لِسَانًا عَرَبِيًّا لِيُنْذِرَ الَّذِينَ ظَلَمُوا "and this is a confirming book in an Arabic tongue to warn those who have wronged"

So, yes, in fact it does mention over and over that it is in Arabic (and I would argue that where it doesn't say "clear" or "pure" that can at least be strongly implied, given that there is an obvious equation in it that being revealed in the Arabic language = understandable/clear, which makes sense because it is given to Arabs by a fellow Arab in an Arabic-speaking environment; this is why people say, reasonably, that Islam is in truth the religion of the Arabs, by the Arabs, and for the Arabs, even though it has spread to many other peoples who did not adopt the Arabic language with it), which is bizarre compared to the Bible.

 

[dzheremi]

Arghhh...I had the images of the original Arabic text for most of those (from corpus.quran.com), but I guess they're not showing up. I don't feel like editing such a long post as to put the Arabic in 'by hand' for every example, so anyone who is interested can go to that website and look all the references up. I am not misrepresenting any of them.

 

[Barney2.0]

It says something similar only once in the whole Qur'an:

[26:195] In a perfect Arabic tongue.

Then the Quran was wrong, Muslims always repeatedly state the Quran is pure Arabic while in reality it’s not.

 

[Yi-man]

It was the Arabic of the Qur'an, which when recited won over so many of the Pagan Arabs. If GOD is pointing out the standard of Arabic, then so be it. As the verses posted from dzhermi show, it does not repeatedly refer to it being in 'pure arabic' and when you read the context of the verses, they mostly refute the allegations of the Prophet's enemies.

 

[dzheremi]

The point is, again, that the Qur'an is obsessed with its own status as a specifically Arabic book. That is curious. That is something that is not found in the previous scriptures. You do not find in the New Testament any mention of its Greek language, nor any mention of the Aramaic besides the words of our Lord and God Jesus Christ on the cross (and other more oblique reference, it could be argued), which was necessary to give context to the translation into Greek given in the same text. In other words, in the NT it is not about the language itself, while in the Qur'an it is very much "an Arabic Qur'an" this, "an Arabic Qur'an" that...Arabic and Arabs everywhere for the Arabic-speaking Arab god.

Meanwhile, back in reality, ARABIC IS NOT SPECIAL. I speak it to the extent that I have to, thanks to the historical reality of what has happened to my Church and its people at the hands of 'Amr Ibn Al 'As and his successors in the Arab conquests, but there is no theology wrapped up in it as there is for Muslims, since your religion is an Arab supremacist religion, while in Christianity there is neither Jew nor Greek. The fact that your god is so provincial is curious, and the theological implications of that even more curious.

I am with the Algerian Kabyle secularist martyr singer Matoub Lounes (killed by Algerian Islamist scum) when he says in his song "Allah Akhbar" sarcastically that "Arabic is the language of God, and conveys immense knowledge, unlike other languages; for it, you throw yourself into the abyss, and the prophet Muhammad will save you."

And even more with this scene, from the great Lebanese film "West Beirut", about the civil war and its effect on one Muslim family:

"Arabs are scum! I'm Lebanese -- Phoenician!"

I am not for saying such a thing about an entire ethnicity (after all there are Christian Arabs who were never converted, like the Bedouins in Jordan, just as there were Christian Arabs among the Lakhmids who established the first Arab kingdom at Al-Hira, centuries before Muhammad; eventually the majority of the Lakhmids were Christian), but when you go on and on about Arabic this and Arabic that in your 'holy' book, eventually it will induce that reaction in people, and rightly so...hence Christianity grows in the self-consciously not Arab parts of the forced-to-be-Arab world. For example, from wiki on Christianity in Algeria: "Conversions to Christianity have been most common in Kabylie, especially in the wilaya of Tizi-Ouzou. In Tizi-Ouzou, the proportion of Christians has been estimated to be between 1% and 5%."

Thanks be to God for that...oh, wait, sorry...shukrallah...that's better, right? Now God will hear me...