God’s Testimony – The Linguistic Miracle of the Quran for Non-Arabs
Channel: Hamza Tzortzis
File Size: 103.66MB
Bismillah R Rahman r Rahim in Alhamdulillah wa Salatu was salam, ala rasulillah. Assalamu alaykum warahmatullahi wabarakatuh, who brothers and sisters and friends, and welcome to today's live academic seminar entitled, God's testimony. So what are we going to be talking about today? Well, essentially, my main objective is for you to be able to articulate the linguistic miracle of the Quran, without any knowledge of the Arabic language, okay? Because when one tries to show the veracity of the Quran, using the linguistic miracle, there is a presupposition, there is an assumption. And that assumption is that one has access to the linguistic and literary tools to
appreciate the unique literary form, or the unique linguistic genre, or the peak of eloquence of
multiple frequency of rhetorical devices of the Quran. And that assumption is a problematic assumption, especially when you're giving the hour when you're sharing a song academically and intellectually, with an audience that doesn't know Arabic. And if they do know Arabic, they frankly may not have the tools to be able to understand the intricacies concerning the linguistic and literary features of the Quranic discourse. And that's why it's extremely important brothers and sisters, for us to be able to speak about this argument, but to do so in a way
that we can converse, or at least we can show the veracity of the Quran, without the person requiring any knowledge of the Arabic language. In actual fact, it doesn't even require you to have any knowledge of the Arabic language. And I think this argument is a powerful argument if one truly understands it. And yes, today is going to be conceptually heavy is going to be what you call feel philosophically heavy.
Because we're going to be talking about very important epistemological stuff, epistemological realities, such as the fundamental and indispensable nature of testimony, so we're gonna unpack the epistemology of testimony. And we're also going to be talking about the inference to the best explanation. And when we, when we understand those areas carefully, and we understand them properly, when we apply them to the Quran, we will be able to make the best inference, the most rational inference, which is that the Quran could could have only come from Allah subhanho wa Taala. But in order for you to understand this properly, you have to take this intellectual journey with me. And
let's do it in sha Allah. So I've got some slides here. So what we're going to be covering today is really the epistemology of testimony, as I just discussed, and I think this is going to be quite a paradigm shift for many of you is going to make you see knowledge in a totally different way. We're going to talk about the inference to the best explanation. And we're going to articulate an argument for the veracity of the Quran, we're going to articulate an argument for why the Quran is from Allah, in using using the epistemology of testimony and the inference to the best explanation and we're going to apply it to the inevitability of the Quran. And don't worry if you don't know what
inevitability is, we're going to explain all of these key terms and concepts today in sha Allah. So this is the structure of the argument. This is the summary and we're gonna unpack each premise. So don't worry if you don't know what each premise means. Don't worry if you don't believe that the conclusion follows in any kind of logical way. Don't worry if you don't know certain key terms such as you know, what does counter scholarly testimonies me in What does inimitable mean? What does
an error mean? How many kidding you get the point so if you don't know any terminologies, don't worry, my job today is to unpack all of this for you. So don't be scared when I'm talking about the argument now in summarizing it and giving you the structure because the job of myself insha Allah is to unpack everything for you today. So this is the structure of the argument. Number one, the Quran presents a literary and linguistic challenge to humanity. Number two, the seventh century Arabs were best placed to challenge the Quran.
Number three, the seventh century Arabs failed to do so number four, scholars have testified to the current inevitability. Number five, counter scholarly testimonies are not plausible, as they have to reject the established background information. And what we mean by counter scholarly testimonies is some scholars some orientalist that do not testify to the inevitability of the Quran. Number six, therefore, from premise one to five, the Quran is inevitable. And then we continue. Number seven. The possible explanations for the
inevitability are authorship by an Arab and non Arab Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wa sallam or God. Number eight, they could not have been produced by an Arab and non Arab, or Mohammed sama, Allahu alayhi wa sallam. Therefore, the best explanation is that it is from God. Now, what's very important to understand here is each of these premises when we unpack them, you have to understand brothers and sisters, there's going to be certain academic and popular objections, and we're going to be dealing with these inshallah. So don't worry, we're here for you today. And easily we can unpack all of this, just be patient. and patience is extremely important when we're trying to learn a new
argument, or learn certain concepts or key ideas. And to save your questions for the end. I know some questions are coming up now, but save it for the end, and inshallah I will be addressing your questions.
Now, before we unpack this further, I would like to say that this argument has been referenced, it's been referenced in the book that you can see here, I've got it with me, I do advise you to buy it. It was translated and annotated extensively by our beloved brother and friend, Dr. Suffer choudry. It's a treaties on disputation and argumentation. And he uses this argument that we've developed Alhamdulillah, that actually was taken from my book, the divine reality. And in his book on page 74, and 75, he referenced his argument as a argument with regards to using inference to the best explanation. Or rather, he uses this argument to show an example of let me just go through the book
right now, just to be sure. He is given an example of
what is he giving an example of?
Yes, inference to the best explanation. I believe that's what he's using this as an example of
insha Allah. Yes. So there you go. I just want to put that in there. Because, you know, an established academic, like Dr. Safra choudry, has referenced this argument. And yes, this is an argument from authority, no problem. But it's just there just to make you understand that we're not just picking this out from thin air. It has been reviewed to a certain degree. In actual fact, Dr. Safra, Chowdhry, he, he actually helped me when I wrote an essay, the essay or the chapter in my book, but originally it was an essay, he actually helped me extensively when I was dealing with the contention with regards to element 10, A, B, which we're going to discuss in a few moments, if you
don't know what that's about, don't worry. So May Allah bless him and grant him the best in this life and the life to come. I mean, so let's continue.
Now, the first thing we we have to understand is why are we articulating this argument because in the dialogue when we try to intellectually articulate a positive case for Islam, and in this case, the Quran, we usually say the Quran is a linguistic and literary miracle, you know, we reference it in our pamphlets, and our books, and so on, and so forth. And we even may even have discussions using Arabic and using examples of eloquence from the Quran, using examples of a unique genre or literary genre, using examples of a unique literary form, using examples of a supernatural frequency of rhetorical devices, and so on and so forth. But all of this, all of this is premised on the idea
that we have the tools to access the kind of linguistic, literary Arabic technical stuff that we're talking about, right? Like, you know, when we talk about things like ility fat, which is, you know, grammatical shift or referencing shifting, you know, we have to actually know what that's about and how it's used in a way to enhance the communicative effect of the the meaning portrayed by the book of Allah subhana wa, Tada. But you need knowledge of that, and this is very deep. It's a science in in Arabic In classical Arabic bellezza rhetoric. eloquence is a deep science and even as themselves don't have the tools to understand this. So it's premised on the fact that you know, you have the
tools or the person you're talking to has the tools to even understand what you're
Same even if they don't have the tools and they agree with you, they have to trust you. Right? They have to actually trust you that what you're saying is true that this is the nature of the Arabic language. This is how the Arabic language works. This is how the Quran produces a supernatural eloquence for example, they would have to actually believe you not based on believe what you're saying, not based on for example, any technical expertise that they have, but just by virtue of the fact that they just trust you.
So it's very important that we in the dialogue that we create arguments that are timeless that absorbs if you like or transcends any of the kind of key contentions and key objections that may come today or even tomorrow. So you know, when we say the Quran has supernatural eloquence, the Quranic Arabic is inimitable, the Quran is the best expression of the Arabic language. Well, that is all premise on what an assumption and that assumption is, do you know Arabic? Right? Do you know classical Arabic? Do you have the tools at your disposal to understand what you're saying? Or does the person that you're talking to have the tools at their disposal to understand what they're
saying? And this is very, very critical, because this assumption is actually an assumption that defeats the argument. Because if you don't have the tools, and they don't have the tools, which is usually the case, especially in the English, Western context, then well, you know, they just have to trust you. But if they have to trust you, then it doesn't really matter what you say, right. So this is why it's very important for us to future proof the dour for us to be able to transcend some of the objections that come up and for us to have more robust, robust arguments for the book of Allah subhanho wa Taala.
Now, so the background to this argument is extremely important, the concept that we're gonna be talking about now, before we formulate the argument, before we unpack the premises, is the epistemology of testimony and the inference of the best explanation. However, I really want to mention something and brothers and sisters, please take this very seriously. Please take it very seriously.
The Book of Allah, for me, the Book of Allah, if someone is sincere, and they read the book of Allah, that is enough. I believe that because the articulation of who Allah is, that tell him of Allah, the divine oneness of Allah, the oneness of his divinity, the wonders of his creative power, the oneness of his names and attributes, as particularly in an express in the Quran, if one is sincere, if once fitrah innate disposition is not clouded, they will be able to appreciate the truth of the Quran. Without a doubt, they need to engage with the court and we and people and non Muslims need to engage with the Quran in a way, that is phenomenological phenomenological, meaning have an
experience with the book of Allah subhanho wa Taala read the meaning.
Read the meaning. When when we understand the virtues of reciting the Quran, you have to understand that those virtues were just what describing the Arabs, Yanni. What I'm trying to say here is it was talking to the the primary audience which was the Sahaba they already knew Arabic. So when we were talking about the virtues, or when the person was talking about talking about the virtues of reciting the Quran, it was already assumed that they're gonna understand what they recite. So it's very important that we do talk about even Allah says in the Quran, do not do to the power of the Quran or the rocks on their hearts. So from this perspective, we can mirror the meaning and the more
tanakpur we do, the more pondering we do, our hearts become unlocked, to receive the guidance and mercy of Allah subhana wa to Allah. This is why brothers and sisters, do not underestimate the power of gang people just to reflect on the Quran for yourself as a Muslim, but also non Muslims, if they are sincere, the fitrah is not clouded, the innate disposition is not is not is not clouded.
Then what has been and they engage with the Quran and they do Tatupu they ponder over the Quran, inshallah, this will be enough for them because the Quran, really his main message was to announce a lot to humanity, that He is worthy of worship, that He is worthy to be known, to be loved, to be obeyed, and, and to, for us to direct all of our internal and external acts of worship to Allah alone. So this is very important. I wanted I mentioned this because I don't want to I don't want to, you know, create a narrative where the Quran has to be proven philosophically in this way all the time. No, not at all. Please understand what I've just said. So let's go back to the essential,
philosophical conceptual background that we need to understand which is the epistemology of testimony and the inference of the best explanation in actual fact, these things are going to be amazing tools for you, that you can apply in your intellectual journey when you're dealing with with other areas of knowledge, especially dealing
With atheists and philosophical naturalists, and all of these people who claim to have some kind of truth claims, which we know, actually false, because their understanding of philosophy and even feel philosophy and theology is extremely weak, and is not founded on anything from that perspective. So that's, and that's why it's very important, these concepts are going to transcend today's discussion. So the first thing we need to understand is about testimony, the epistemology of testimony now, testimony is an indispensable and fundamental source of knowledge. Okay. And when it comes to the epistemology of testimony, which is really questioning, how does testimony yield
evidence? Is testimonial knowledge based on other sources of knowledge? Is testimony fundamental? How do we ensure that testimony actually
provides knowledge? What kind of other concepts or ideas or philosophical criteria must we have in order to assess if testimony constitutes knowledge if one's testimony actually constitutes knowledge? And these are the kinds of questions that that the epistemologists have tests? testimony, if you like the epistemology is those who study knowledge, they ask these questions. And what's very interesting is that in even Western philosophy, testimony is actually one of the sources of knowledge.
And it's this is not controversial. And in the past 30 or 40 years, it's been a revival in the kind of epistemological assessment of testimony as a fundamental and essential source of knowledge. Now, many people because we live in this kind of, you know, metaphysical, naturalistic world, and we live in the age of science, we're like testimony, what on earth is that about? I'm not going to just trust what somebody says. Now, that is a very shallow response. And when we discuss further today, you're going to really understand that most of your knowledge and my knowledge, and even most of the knowledge of a scientist, is actually not empirically founded, from the point of view that they
actually have to believe it, believe in it to be true by virtue of testimonial transmission, because when you read a science book, you haven't done the experiment yourself. They've done it. And they've testified that they've done it, and you believe it No, by virtue of you doing the experiment, but you believe it by virtue of the testimony, which is in the ink and the paper of the scientific book that you're actually reading.
So let's continue with this idea of testimony. So Professor Benjamin, in my mind, I think is an associate professor. He provides a very beautiful summary of testimonial knowledge. He says, Here are a few things that I know, I know that the Copperhead is the most common venomous snake in the Greater Houston area. I know that Napoleon lost the Battle of Waterloo, I know that as I write, the average price for gasoline in the US is $4.10 per gallon. All of these things I know, on the basis of our epistemic knowledge is called testimony on the basis of being told of them by another person or group of persons. And a lot of the knowledge that we have is actually testimonial transmission.
And this is not controversial at all. Yes, there are different criteria. And there's, there's a discussion in the academic literature on what constitutes valid test testimonial knowledge. But that's not really our discussion today, our discussion is to show that testimony is a fundamental and valid source of knowledge. Once we understand this clearly, then we're able to move on, and we're able to understand this argument properly in sha Allah. So as I said, there's a discussion on the validity of testimony. And I'm going to discuss briefly about this. But the first thing I want to really, really get you to understand is that testimony is fundamental. So there was a discussion,
obviously, a lot of these type of discussions are, you know, you could trace them back to the Scottish skeptic, David Hume. And he spoke about testimony. And he basically said that testimony is useful. So he didn't dismiss it. He understood its instrumental value. We can't dispense away with testimony.
And he said, testimony is very important, but we only accept testimonial transmission. We only accept it as knowledge, if it's aligned with our collective experiences. Now, Professor Cody many 100 years later, he writes the book testimony, I think it's called a philosophical discussion of philosophical study. He and it was published in 1991, I believe, and it was a it was a it was a landmark book with regards to the discussions in epistemology of testimony. He basically argues against David Hume, and he says, hold on a second, David Hume. Obviously he doesn't use those words, but I'm just kind of trying to eloquently summarize his point. He says, hold on a second. David
Hume. You agree that testimony
He's instrumental, you agree that it's very useful, and maybe necessary. So, but you say we only accept it as a valid form of knowledge if it's aligned with our collective experiences. So he turns the table and says, How do you know what our collective experiences are?
You have an experience other people's experiences you haven't seen you haven't done, you haven't experienced the experiences you haven't done the scientific data, the empirical stuff that they have done, you have to
find out through the testimonial transmission. So to understand the collective experiences, you have to rely on testimony,
which shows the fundamental nature of testimony is not just instrumental, it is fundamental. And this is a powerful argument. He I think he refutes, they became. And what's amazing here, brothers and sisters, is now if someone says, or if David Hume reports and says, Well, I could just rely on my own experiences, ha. But if you were to rely just on your own experiences, you wouldn't have any knowledge, especially when you're talking about today's type of knowledge in the sciences, and in philosophy and in mathematics, you can't do everything yourself, you have to rely on other people's research and investigation. Right. So I think Professor Cody really shows that testimony is a
fundamental and indispensable source of knowledge. Now, there is a discussion on what constitutes, you know, valid testimonial knowledge, because some testimony can be absolutely wrong. Of course, you know, as you know, you know, when, when a politician says something, we're not going to believe him just by virtue of his testimony, of course not, because usually politicians, unfortunately, they lie. So you know, just because someone's testimony is usually not true, or it's not founded on on reality, it doesn't mean that we throw the baby out with the buffalo because if we did that with all sources of knowledge, you wouldn't have any knowledge at all. Because even experience and empirical
data, we can miss understand it. Or we can have illusions, for example, or it could be, you know, theory Laden, we could presuppose an ideal on to the experience, and it makes us look at the experience in a way that's not a representation of reality. So all sorts of noise have those problems anyways, you can't throw the baby out with the buffalo otherwise, you'd have no knowledge at all. So there hasn't been a discussion on the kind of validity of what kind of philosophical criteria you have, in order to that you need in order to understand what is valid testimonial knowledge. So Dr. Elizabeth fricker, she makes a really good point. She says, look, we have to rely
on experts, our limitations, you know, we have cognitive limitations, epistemic limitations. We can't know everything, we have to rely on the authority of others. And this is quite interesting, because when I had my kind of, you know, famous debate many years ago, with Professor Lawrence Krauss towards the end, we had a discussion on this issue, and I tried to expose a he had an empirical presupposition, and that empirical presupposition was what it was, you know, all knowledge comes from experience. And I said, this is not true. Right. This is this is a presupposition that's unfounded. And he said, Well, what other sources of knowledge do you have? And I said, testimony,
and then he almost snickered at me. And I said, well, and he said, I just do the science. And I said, well do this science. And I said, Do you believe in evolution? He said, Yes. And I said, Have you done all the science experiments yourself? He said, No, people started to laugh, because they exposed will expose the reality that this vast area of knowledge in science, you can't do everything is. So even if the experiments are repeatable, that's still testimonial evidence, because you have to believe that repeatable by virtue of them saying is repeatable, you'd have to repeat yourself to actually know it's repeatable, but you call it is too much stuff going on in this domain of
knowledge. And this is why even the Berkeley website when he discusses science, it actually talks about the seaso, or the authority of the body of scientists, others or other scientists is a body of knowledge going on. And you can only access that body of knowledge by virtue of war, by virtue of the testimonial transmission, not by virtue of you actually doing that science yourself, because it's practically impossible and even epistemological, impossible for you to do all the experiments and the research yourself. So testimony is so significant, even in science, pick up any science book, or the scientific facts that you have. Just think about brothers and sisters, the scientific
facts that you have, most of them are based on testimony, not empirical data. Yes, the book that you read claims, it came from research, it came from empirical data, but did you do it yourself? No, you had to actually just believe the say so of the person who basically wrote the book.
Now moving on from this, you have other discussions in the epistemology of testimony. By the way
epistemology, epistemology for those who don't know, means actually the study of knowledge. So that the epistemologists, someone who studies knowledge, they actually talk about trust, as, you know, a concern when it comes to valid testimonial knowledge. And, for example, Professor Keith Lera, he basically discusses this. And he says that, you know, in order for testimony or knowledge to be valid, we have to be trustworthy. In our assessments of the trustworthiness of others. Allahu Akbar, what am I talking about here? What does this sound like to you? They're talking about this? Well, in 2006, we've been talking about this for over 1400 years, right? Also, because this is actually
articulating, maybe the philosophical basis for what
animal Hadeeth the science of Hadeeth right, because in the science of hobbies, you know, we we actually have developed philosophical theory or philosophical criteria to understand if somewhere in the, in the snide, which is the chain of transmission, if they're trustworthy, or not, what constitutes their trustworthiness, right, and so on and so forth. So it's very interesting that in 2006, because it's been taken from one of the essays from Professor Keith layer, I think he's an emeritus professor, and he talks about the we have to be trustworthy, in our assessments of the trustworthiness of others, and also the person providing that testimonial knowledge has to be
trustworthy to sounds like mo Hadees. To me, the science of prophetic narrations to me.
Also, Professor Benjamin mackmyra, he talks about the right to referral, meaning that you know, when someone is expressing a testament testimonial knowledge, is his, his he or she is, is giving testimony to some knowledge, then there must there must be a right to refer meaning that the one who's giving the testimonial transmission, they have to accept the responsibility that someone could refer back to them and say, let me question you further. And the audience themselves, they have to accept also a kind of epistemic responsibility, a responsibility to not acknowledge, in order to question the person that is actually providing that testimony or knowledge, say, Hey, what do you
mean by that? Actually, Do you have evidence for this? Can you explain this further. And I think that's what Benjamin maquila was actually trained to say, which is very interesting. Now, there's much more concerning the testimony of knowledge much, much more. It's not the role of the webinar, the seminar today to actually unpack this, I've just given you a little taster to understand that there is a philosophical discussion on on what constitutes valid testimonial knowledge. But our main issue here today is to show that testimony is fundamental. It's a fundamental and indispensable source of knowledge, brothers and sisters.
Now, let me unpack this further. I'm gonna give you three key examples here, you're gonna love this, okay? Every time I do this, when I say universities, when I talk to students, even academics, it's it's it's a bit of a laugh, actually, because they, they realize that some key key aspects of knowledge is not based on on science is based on testimonial transmission. So let me ask you a question. Is the world flat? By the way, before you go crazy, I don't believe the world is flat. Okay, I believe it's it's spherical. All right. But let me ask you a question. Is the world flat? Now many of you may say, Oh, of course, it's not flat. It's spherical. Now, let me ask you another
Do you have any, what's your proof?
Many of you may say, Well, we have many pictures that show that the world is spherical. We have, you know, it says in the science books, okay. But those two answers for those pieces of so called evidence than non empirical, that testimonial, because a book is a testimonial transmission. It's telling you, you have to believe what it says. And the photographs, they're not empirical, the testimonial Why, yes, you see, an image is empirical. But fundamentally, this testimonial Why? I tell you why. Because when someone takes a picture of Earth, they have to say to you, this is Earth.
So you take their testimony that this is Earth and you apply it to the picture. I don't care if there's millions of them, I don't care if there's billions of those pictures on Google, the point is fundamentally, that evidence that the world is round or spherical by virtue of a picture is not empirical. It's actually testimonial.
So what you guys gonna say? Now, many of you haven't done much mathematics. Many of you haven't, you know, done much of the science yourself. You know, many of you haven't gone in a rocket and actually launch yourself and actually seen in space, the spherical nature of the earth, you have a number, yes, other people have done that. But you haven't done that. So you have to believe what they said even if they took a video of it. You still have to believe that that is earth because one point in time when you were developing as a child or a young adult, or whenever they had to basically say this is Earth. So that's a testimonial.
transmission of being applied to a picture.
So the fundamental essence of this piece of knowledge is actually testimonial, not empirical. Now many of you say, Well, if you're going to read a high mountain, you can see the curvature of the earth. Well, then again, it doesn't mean is round, maybe it's a flower, Mary is a semicircle, right? The point I'm trying to say here is that you don't have many of us, at least maybe 80% 90% of us, we don't have scientific, direct empirical evidence for the world being round.
It's testimonial fundamentally.
So you know, we could unpack this more in the in the q&a, but let me give another question.
Does Japan exist? Does Japan exist?
How do you know Japan exists? Many of you gonna say yes, of course it exists. Okay. Now, here's a caveat. If you haven't been there, right?
You haven't been there, that you haven't experienced it? empirically, if you like, then how do you know it exists? Well, you're gonna say it's on a map. I've met Japanese person before. for, you know, I've been learning Japanese. But that doesn't mean anything. That's all fundamentally testimonial knowledge. because someone's saying that the Japanese you have to believe them that they're Japanese. Right? You know, I say to you, I'm Greek. I'm ethnically Greek.
I'm British, but ethnically Greek. My mom's from Cyprus. My dad's from Greece. So I'm ethnic. She's Greek Cypriot, my mum. So I'm ethnically Greek, right?
Is that empirical evidence? No, you have to believe what I said. It's, it's it's it's testimonial transmission. Many of you won't even believe me. Any of you probably think I look Arabic, Persian or Pakistani. Right. So there you go. So the here the point here is seek meaning someone who's Japanese is not proof that Japan exists. From an empirical point of view, it's proof from a testimonial point of view is testimony or knowledge. I'm not dismissing it as valid and fundamental. But that's what I'm trying to show you today.
Even if you look at things in a map, even if you look at videos of documentaries and books on history, and you have a library of Japanese cultural studies, whatever the case may be, we lots of sushi, and they say this is a Japanese cultural dish. That's all testimonial knowledge, because someone told you, right? In actual fact, even if you went to Japan itself, and you went on a plane, it says going to Japan, you arrive in Tokyo, still or testimonial, really, because because you just have to believe them, isn't it? You have to believe that yes, you're you're in Japan now. You have to believe them. Yes, that the people you're speaking to actually Japanese, and they're in this area
that looks like the show that you're looking at right now.
So it's fundamentally testimonial. But in essence, if you've never been there before, all your evidence that Japan Japan exists is actually testimonial, fundamental, even if you have pictures, even you have videos, again, just like the earth being spherical, it's testimonial transmission, because someone has to say this to you. They have to say, well, we're in Japan right now, or this person is Japanese, or what I'm speaking to you is actually Japanese, or
this food that you eating is called sushi and it's from Japan. No, this is testimonial transmission.
Right. Hopefully this is you gain to understand this now. This one's very powerful. Brothers and sisters. I'm telling you this one is what I would call a Smackdown. Right?
A Smackdown. Okay, so
this is a Smackdown brothers and sisters. How do you know? Right? How do you know how to pronounce this word that you see on the screen right now?
How do you know how to pronounce love? Tell me.
How do you know how to pronounce love?
Why do we say love and we don't say low?
Why do we say love and we don't say love? e? Why do we say love it? We don't say low v? Right?
Why do you say love? We don't say love? And we just have the E sign? Right?
Why do we do that? Tell me
the pronunciation the correct pronunciation of the word love is through testimonial transmission.
There is no empirical reality other than
testimonial transmission. So there's no empirical reality all you have is testimonial transmission to understand how to pronounce words. And you may argue no Hamza, you know in the special dictionaries, you have the word and you have the symbols is international type of symbols that teach you how to pronounce those words. Whoa, hold on a second. What came first the pronunciation of the book that tells you how to pronounce it was the pronunciation that didn't. You know, we weren't revealed from the skies, a book on how to pronounce words and certain languages. And then we use that I then started to pronounce the words correctly. That wasn't the case. We
Learn how to you how to pronounce words in any language through testimonial testimonial transmission. So if you deny testimonial transmission, it's fundamental and indispensable nature, you is tantamount equivalent philosophically logically equivalent of
rejecting all non languages.
So, that's testimony but brothers and sisters, now there's some important distinctions we have to make. We know in academia, there is a difference between testimonial transmission of narratives of knowledge and eyewitness testimonies, because eyewitness testimonies, according to the case, according to research, you know, they do suffer with regards to, you know, the testimonial transmission of a particular event that happened. And you know, some of them suffered due to due to people's imperfect short term memories, the psychological influence, and so on and so forth. As I write in my book here, eyewitness testimony may suffer due to our imperfect short term memories and
the psychological influences and constraints on recording the sequence of a particular event. the testimony of knowledge, ideas or concepts does not suffer from such issues. Because the acquisition of knowledge is usually a result of repetition, a relatively longer duration, internalization and study. So it's an important distinction to make between transmission of narratives and knowledge, and actually, eyewitness testimony as well. But then again, this doesn't mean that eyewitness testimony is not valid, there could be some criteria in place to ensure especially especially if it's multiple eyewitness testimony, that is actually true. And you know, what's really interesting,
David Hume, who was, who was a skeptic, right? He actually argues, you know, when he argued, argues against miracles, because traditionally, miracles were only proved by testimony. He said, in actual fact, you can believe in miracles, if there's something called something called the recurrent reporting mass testimonial transmission overnight, went over over an event that many people witnessed, and I witnessed a particular event. And there are so many of those people. And they didn't mean they kind of came from different places and times or something like that, that you have to believe in what they say to be true. And this is very interesting, because David Hume was
actually talking about what we understand in Islamic intellectual tradition as the mutawatir art, or mutawatir, or Tato, mass record reporting, because, you know, a toilet or Hadith or something that is more towards, you know, there's, there's no there's no doubt about that testimonial transmission, right? Because it came from different places. Rather, it came from people that came from different places at different times, and many of these people have never met each other. But when you go down the test, testimonial transmissions, they all say the same thing, or they all witnessed the same thing. It's impossible to say that they actually, you know, conjured up some kind of massive
conspiracy, in order to, you know, come up with a certain claim and David Kubrick where he says, look what he says, He says the following, I break the limitations here may may or may be remarked, when I say that a miracle can never be proved so as to be the foundation of a system of religion, for I own Otherwise, they may possibly be miracles, or violations of the usual course of nature of such a kind as to admit a of proof from human testimony, though perhaps, it will be impossible to find such an all records of history. Thus, suppose all authors in all languages agree that from the first of January 1600, there was a total darkness over the whole earth for 80 days. Suppose that the
tradition of this extra ordering event is still strong and lively among the people, the old travelers who returned from foreign countries bring us accounts of the same tradition. Without the least variation of contradiction. It is evident that our present philosophers instead of doubting the fact, ought to receive a certain it's very interesting that many of these atheists who quote him to reject miracles, don't read further down and see what he said about mass transmission. He's saying if there's this type of mass transmission, and there's no difference in their eyewitness testimony, then we have to believe in what they said is true. And what's very interesting, he said,
we didn't have an example where he doesn't know about the Quran because the Quran is a tomato. It's based on the mutawa tirat is based on the mass transmission of our scholars and the Sahaba and the Muslim community just like the way we pronounce words like the word love has come down to us via this mass reporting this mass transmission. I know this is a bit of a side topic, but what I thought was important to discuss another important distinction to make
is just because that testimony can be wrong. You don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, as we discussed earlier, because even empirical data or experience could be wrong. We've known this, this is well known in the philosophy of science. This is well known in, you know, in metaphysics when you're studying empiricism, and so on and so forth. So just because testimony can be wrong, you don't you don't know say it's not a fundamental source of knowledge. Now, what you discuss now is, well, what constitutes valid testimonial knowledge?
So it's very important for you to understand as well, brothers and sisters.
So brothers and sisters,
let's now talk about
inference to the best explanation. Now, brothers and sisters inference to the best explanation is what you call an invaluable way of thinking, right? It involves trying to coherently explain a particular set of data or background knowledge. And the way to understand this really well is a medical diagnosis. If you go, for example, to a doctor and you give the doctor your symptoms, they have the background, medical, medical, academic study, the background, medical experiences, the background medical knowledge, they look at the data, which is your symptoms, and they basically give you the best explanation that explains your symptoms. What the doctor is basically doing is
inference to the best explanation. They're seeing right there all these symptoms based on my background experience, based on my medical knowledge based on my academic,
medical academic background, I think there are four possible explanations, then I'm assessing these explanations, and I pick one of them, because this explanation best explains your symptoms. This explanation is more comprehensive. This explanation has explanatory scoping explains all of your symptoms, and explains your medical history as well. So what the doctors are actually doing here is something called inference to the best explanation.
Peter Lipton, who wrote the book inference to the best explanation actually summarizes this. And he says, the doctor infers that his patients patient has measles, since this is the best explanation of the evidence before him. And then he continues with other sources of knowledge. He says, that astronomer infers the existence of the motion of Neptune, since that is the best explanation of the observed perturbations of Uranus. Given our data and our background beliefs, we infer what would If true, provide the best of the competing explanations we can generate of those data? And yes, there is a philosophical discussion on what explanations are the best explanation out of a competing set
of explanation, and that this discussion on simplicity, and comprehensiveness, and we don't have to go too much into it. Because, you know, we already understand that inference of the best explanation is a valid way of thinking but just to be a little bit academically new. It's from that perspective, and I'll read from my book here.
You know, when we talk about inference to the best explanation as with most things, we can have competing explanations for the data at our disposal. What filters his explanations is not only the plausibility, but the ability of other pieces of data that could help us discriminate between them, and Lipton explains, we begin by considering plausible candidate explanations and then try to find data that discriminate between them, and inference may be defeated when someone suggests a better alternative explanation, even though the evidence doesn't change. Now, the accessibility to additional data is not the only way to access which of the competing explanations is most most
convincing. The best explanation is one that is the simplest simplicity, however, is just the beginning. As there must be a careful balance between simplicity and comprehensiveness. comprehensiveness entails an explanation must have explanatory power and scope. The explanation must account for all of the data, including disparate or unique observations. Now another criterion to assess the comprehensiveness of an explanation includes explaining data or observations that were previously unknown, unexpected on an index clickable. An important principle in assessing the best explanation is that it is most likely to be true compared to competing explanations, given our
background knowledge, and you also have the academic philosopher from Princeton University Gilbert hitch Harmon he assesses this as well. Now
The point here is, I just wanted to explain that inference of explanation is actually a valid form of thinking. Now what's very interesting is this is that we use it all the time. Say you're a mother, and you told your seven year old cheeky son not to have any biscuits, and you go upstairs, I don't know to send an email to someone from your desktop, and your son goes to the kitchen opens. The cupboard takes a cookie jar biscuit, jaw, he eats all the biscuits, then he's so full, he falls asleep on the couch. Now the jaw is empty. But you see crumbs all over his face. Now when you go downstairs to see what he's doing, would you conclude you don't conclude that somehow miraculously,
the cookie jar, or the biscuit jar came out of the cupboard and, and someone took the cookies and someone crumbled them over your son's face? Of course not, you're gonna infer the best explanation, given the background data of your son and his cheekiness throughout his seven years of living, and given the fact that he loves biscuits, and you already told him not to have them because sometimes he's very cheeky, and he wants to have those biscuits. And given the fact that he's done this before. And given the fact that he has crumbs all over his face and the biscuit jar is right next to him, then obviously, the best explanation, the inference to the best explanation is what? He ate
them, right. So we use this in our day to day lives. We use this medicine, we use this everywhere we use this brothers and sisters, especially in science as well. So let's continue. Let's now formulate the argument issue. Remember brothers and sisters, we formulated the argument, we we, we gave you the premises and now it's about unpacking the premises. Let me give you the premises again. Number one, the Quran presents a literary linguistic challenge to humanity. Number two, the seventh century as a best place to change the clan. Number three, the seventh century atmosphere to do so number four scholars have testified to the crimes and imitability number five counts scholarly testimonies
are not plausible as they have to reject the established background information which is important concerning inference to the best explanation number six from one to five, the Quran is inimitable. Number seven, the possible explanations for the crowds and invertibility or authorship by an Arab and non Arab Mohammed Salam or God, Number eight, he could not he could have not been produced by an Arab and on on Mohammed Saab Allahu alayhi wa sallam. Number nine the conclusion therefore, the best explanation is that it is from God. So now we're going to unpack all of these premises together, brothers and sisters, is insha Allah. So the first premise, the Quran presents a literary and
linguistic challenge to humanity. And by the way, when we unpack one of these premises, we're not going to need to know any anything about the Arabic language and the way we articulate to people they won't need to know anything about the Arabic language to because we've spoken about testimony as background information. We've spoken about inference to the best explanation, and we're gonna now expand and unpack some of these premises and purpose number one is the Quran. The Quran presents a literary and linguistic challenge to humanity.
This is true, you could really in any language, the Quran, chapter three, verse 23. So the Quran chapter two, verse 23, Allah says, if you have doubts about the revelation, we have sent down to our seven, referring to the Prophet Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, then produce a single chapter like it, and list whatever support you have other than Allah, other than God, in quantum solder pain, if you are truthful in your claim, okay, so this is the challenge. And if you go to the the tafsir, if you go to the multiple exegesis concerning this verse, and there's lots of discussion on this verse, and other verses similar to it's, you know, you have a suti you have given Kathy we have
a to b, and so on and so forth. They have a discussion and they talk about there is something special about the literary and linguistic features of the Quranic discourse. But yes, they mentioned other things too, and there are other opinions, but they do mention that there is this literary intellectual challenge, because the Quran was sent down to a populace to the seventh century Arabs, where they had the peak of eloquence, they were the Masters, tickling themselves articulating themselves in the Arabic language, and the Quran came to challenge them in order to show the Quran is from the divine. So we have a literary, linguistic challenge that the Quran presents. Now, this
opens a kind of kind of theological or philosophical development of the inevitability of the Quran or as is known in the Arabic language as a jazz Allah Quran, the jazz the miraculous nature of the Quranic discourse. And what this basically means is that no one is able to imitate or to match the plant's linguistic and literary features. That's what it means. When we say
the inevitability of the Quran that no one can match or imitate the Quranic literary or linguistic features. Now the word jazz is a verbal noun that means miraculousness and it comes from the verb advisor, which means to render incapable or to make helpless. You understand here, a jazz, the jazz of the Quran, the fact that people try to imitate the Quran, they they are rendered incapable they are incapacitated, and they they are they are made helpless, they cannot match the beauty and the linguistic and literary feature to the Quranic discourse. Now
the kind of linguistic understanding of a jazz, you know, makes us understand the kind of theological doctrine of the inevitability of the Quran of the ages of the Quran. And this was based on the idea that the linguists are the Arab linguists of the seventh century Arabia, the period of Revelation, they were masters, expressing themselves in the art in the Arabic language. And basically what this challenge is, is that the plant came to challenge the masters of the Arabic language, those who reached the peak of the language of expressing themselves in the Arabic tongue, the peak of they reached the peak of eloquence in the Quran came and basically dumbfounded them,
incapacitated them, made them helpless and incapable to produce anything like the book of Allah subhanho wa Taala. Now, so UT, the prolific 15th century writer and scholar, he summarizes this doctrine of the ages of the Quran in the following way. He says, when the prophet SAW Selim brought the challenge to them, and they were the most eloquent rhetorician, so he challenged them to breathe to produce the entire likes of the Quran. And many years passed and they were unable to do so. As God says, Let them then produce every citation similar to it. If indeed they are truthful, then the process I'm challenging them to produce 10 chapters like it were God says, say, bring, say, bring 10
chapters like it, and call upon whoever whom who met whom ever you can besides God, if you're truthful, then he challenged them to produce a single chapter where God says, or do they say he In other words, the Prophet says, someone has forged it, say, bring a chapter like it and call upon whomever you can, besides God, if you are truthful, and as UT continues, when the Arabs were unable to produce a single chapter like the Quran, despite there being the most there, they there they being the most eloquent rhetoricians amongst them, the prophets of Salaam openly announced a failure and in an inability to meet the challenge, and declared the inevitability of the Quran. Then God
said, say, if all of humankind and the jinn gathered together to produce the lack of the Quran, they could not produce it, even if they hope, one another. And this brothers and sisters, is a summary of the doctrine of the jazz of the Quran. And yes, I do understand the differences of opinion concerning what type of challenges this is what this is, what is the nature of the challenge? What is the linguistic and literary features that this challenge refers to. But this is not needed in our discussion today. Because remember, we don't need to know anything about the Arabic language, you're going to understand further, why that's the case. So I think we have substantiate the first, the
first premise brothers and sisters, that the Quran provides a challenge to humanity, a challenge to the seventh century Arabs who reached the peak of eloquence, the Quran provides a literary and linguistic challenge. So the second premise is very important to understand. The second premise is the seventh century ABS were best place to challenge the Quran. Now, this is so true, because when you study the seventh century Arabs, you see that they reached the peak of eloquence, this is affirmed by Western and Eastern scholarship, they lived in a social cultural environment that had all the right conditions to facilitate the unparalleled expertise in the use of the Arabic language.
You know, for you to study poetry, you didn't go to university for just three years, you stayed with a poetic master for 10 years, sometimes in the mountains, you internalized yourself in these rhetorical sciences, you internalized these kinds of this ability to produce, you know,
superior eloquence to anybody else. And what's very interesting from a social political perspective, that that that a poet was, could start a war and could end of war. You know, there were seen as extremely important
features of, you know, society is extremely important, you know, people in society, you know, the scholarship packet was money. May Allah preserve him he, he says that for the seventh century Arab eloquence and rhetoric were their lifeblood, also, the ninth century biographer of the poet's he says, verse was to the era
The register of all the new and the utmost compass of their wisdom. With it, they began their affairs. And with it, they ended them. You have the 14th century scholar called Boone, he highlights the importance of poetry in Arab life. He says it should be known that Arabs highly of poetry as foremost as a form of speech, they made it in they made it in they made it to the archives of the history, the evidence for the considered right and wrong, and the principal basis of reference for most of their sciences and wisdom. Also, you have the linguist that also the linguistic ability and expertise of the cemetery Arab is highlighted by the literary critic and historian, Ibn Rashi. He
illustrates the following. He says, whenever a point emerging, an Arab tribe, other tribes will come to congratulate feast feast will be prepared, the women would join together on lutes as they do at weddings, and all the young men would all rejoice at the good news that Arabs used to congratulate each other only on the birth of a child, and when a poet rose amongst them, and there's so much more evidence as brothers and sisters to show and to talk about the importance of a language. In seventh century Arabia, there was a socialization from that perspective. You know, the ninth century scholar, even poteva, he defined poetry as the Arab soil, he says, the mind of the art, the
knowledge of the Arabs, the book of the wisdom, the truthful witness on the day of dispute, the final proof at the time of arguing, also, Navid kermani, who is an academic and an expert in Islamic Studies, he explains that the seventh century Arab lived in a world that revealed poetry that was the correct kind of socialization and environment for this. He says old Arabic poetry is a highly complex phenomenon, the vocabulary, grammatical induce idiosyncrasies and strict norms were passed down from generation to generation, and only the most gifted students fully mastered the language. A person had to study for years, sometimes even decades on under a master poet before laying claim to
the title of poet Mohammed Hassan grew up in a world which almost religiously revered poetic expression. So I think we can say, just from the basic evidence that we've given you this much more No, and the references are there for you to to access that. The cemetery since seventh century Arab was the best expressing the selves in the Arabic language. This is well known, based on Eastern and Western scholarship. So now we can move to the third premise. The third premise is the the seventh century apps failed to do so. Now this is very interesting, because we know that we're in capacity to okay. So for instance, linguistic expert, Professor Hussein Abramoff, he said the following he
says the Arabs at the time had reached the linguistic peak in terms of linguistic competence and sciences, rhetoric, or ratterree oratory and poetry. No one, however, has been able to produce a single chapter similar to that of the court and even professor of Quranic studies. Angelica Neuwirth argued that the Quran has never been successfully challenged by anyone past or present. She says, No one has succeeded. That is what this is right? I really think that the Quran has even brought Western researchers embarrassment, who weren't able to clarify how suddenly in an environment where there was no appreciable written text, appeared the Quran with its richness of ideas, and
magnificent wordings. And I think the most powerful argument brothers and sisters to show that the seventh century Allen was incapacitated, is in the following statement. And this has been taken from my book. And I really want you to listen to this very carefully because I think it's a it's a phenomenal argument. You don't have to even go to the language itself. Think about it from a social political perspective. Listen to this. A powerful argument that supports the assertion that the seventh century Arabs failed to imitate the Quran relate to the social political circumstances of the time, central to the Quranic message with the condemnation of the immoral, unjust and evil
practices of the seventh century McCann tribes. These included the objectification of women unjust trade, polytheism, slavery, hoarding of wealth, infanticide, and the shunning of warfare orphans. The meccan leadership was being challenged by the Quranic message, and this had the potential to undermine the leadership and economic success in order for Islam to stop spreading. All that was needed for the prophets or psalms adversaries was to meet the linguistic to meet the linguistic and literary challenge of the Quran. However, the fact that Islam succeeded and listen to this, in his early fragile days in Mecca testifies to the fact that his primary audience was not able to meet the
No movement can succeed if a claim fundamental to its core is explicitly proven false. The fact that the meant that the meccan leadership had to retort resort to extreme campaigns, such as warfare and torture, to attempt to extinguish Islam demonstrates that the easy method of refuting Islam meeting the Quranic challenge failed. And I think that is enough for this premise.
Fourth premise, brothers and sisters, scholars have testified to the current inevitability so scholars have testified to the Koreans inevitabilities let's talk about this. Well, there's many scholars if you can't fit all of this on the presentation slides, but there's so many you have Professor Oriental Studies, Martin Zammit, he says, notwithstanding the literary excellence of some of the long pre Islamic poems, the Quran is definitely on a level of its own as the most eminent written manifestation of the Arabic language. You have the orientalist and detra tau AJ Aubrey, he says in making the present attempt to improve on the performance of predecessors and to produce
something which might be accepted as occurring, however, faintly the sublime rhetoric of the Arabic and I have been paying to study the intricate and Richi raid rhythms, which apart from the message itself, constitutes the Quranic undeniable claim to rank amongst amongst the greatest literary masterpieces of mankind and there are so many more arabist Hamilton give, and so on and so forth. And there's a whole list that you can find on my book, which you can download for free on the secrets Institute website. Now, moving on from this, you have those some key contentions, right? Because some people will argue Hold on a second Hamza. Well, what about Shakespeare and Alma Tana be
the famous poet Ullman. omotenashi. Isn't Shakespeare isn't Shakespeare inimitable, right? Isn't Shakespeare and matobo inimitable? Well the something that we need to really clarify here, right.
So let's first talk about an alternate B. So he was allowed to not be now appointed Hamad Al Hussein al muthanna be al Kindi, right. He was considered an inimitable poetic genius by by many Arabs right. And some have argued that although other poets have used the same panner, urich, genre and poetic meter as the great poet, they have not been able to match his level of eloquence and stylistic variants. Therefore, they conclude that elements cannot be his inimitable because we have the blueprint of his work and the linguistic tools at our disposal, but cannot emulate anything like his poetic expression. If this is true, then it undermines the Quranic and immutability However,
this is totally false, okay. This activation of ultimate and a B is false. Firstly, there have been many imitations of an ultimate and a B, by Jewish poets, Moses, even Ezra, and Solomon, even Gabriel. Interestingly, the end of the scene poet in even Hani Al andalusi, was known as the ultimate enemy of the West. And what's very significant is that when you study medieval Arabic poetry, medieval Arabic probably didn't create new literary genres, right? This is due to the fact that it depended on previous poetic work, and academics. Academic Dennis E. McCauley writes that medieval poetry largely hinged more on literary precedent than on direct experience. Also, in
classical Arabic poetry wasn't unusual. It's not unusual for poetry attempt to match a previous as a poem by writing a new one in the same poetic meter, rhyme and theme and this was considered a normal practice. So it's not surprising that the professor of religion, ml hammerin, explored the literary expression of even alpha read and described his work as a very original improvisations of ultimate and upbeat and to fight to highlight further and would not be couldn't be emulated. And you you you see that he disclosed himself I think in his biographical works, that the another poet abouna was he actually both borrowed work from above Nawaz, and many medieval Arabic literary critics such as a
Sahib even Abed and Abu Ali Mohammed bin Hassan and how to me they wrote criticisms omotenashi right even a bad for example he wrote
stuff against I'll be I'll have Timmy for example, wrote a biographical account of his an encounter with Alma tena be in his ella rissalah. And he basically concludes that, you know, his work wasn't that great from and it could be emulated from that perspective, and had him he presents a stronger polemic against alemu tena Bian argues the case that his poetry does not have a unique style and contains error. Even the academic Professor seaga a bona backup who studied anatomy
Let's do criticism of Alamo tend to be, he concludes the following judgment is often well founded, and one almost ends up feeling the ultimate turn that Montana be was, after all, a mediocre poet who was not only lacking in originality, originality, but also had insufficient competence in grammar, lexicography and rhetoric and sometimes gave evidence of incredibly bad taste. Now, if you consider Shakespeare as well, six bass thought to be unparalleled in his use of the English language. However, you have to understand he is not inimitable, his sonnets are written predominantly in a frequently used me to code the am big pentameter, which is a rhyme scheme in which each sonnet line
consists of consists of 10 seven syllables, and the syllables are divided into five pairs could AM's oyin big feet, and also since the blueprint of his work is available, it's not surprising that the English dramatist Christopher Marlowe has a similar style and that Shakespeare has been compared to Francis viewmont, john Fletcher and other playwrights of his time, so that you can't use so called other instances of imitability. Now one contention is which is a valid contention is someone argue Hold on a second thumbs up just because academics, they say that the Quran is inimitable, they give you a testimonial transition, that
inimitable right, it doesn't mean the Quran is from God. Because why do these scholars who say the Quran cannot be imitated? They haven't concluded that the Quran is from the divine. Well, there's a problem with this contention. It conflates testifying to the crimes and immutability, with inference to the best explanation. There's a conflation, the completion here, because the argument that we're presenting here today, does not conclude the divinity of the Quran, from the statements of the scholars. All it saying is, the Quran is inevitable.
In order to now understand that it's from the divine, you have to apply inference to the best explanation. So what did the scholars accept our inference or not, is irrelevant. We're just using the scholars to show the inevitability of the Quran, not the divine nature of the Quran. To now explain that the Quran is from the divine, you have to apply the inference to the best explanation. So there is a conflation. This is a interesting contention, but it's not a valid contention.
Premise number five, we're almost there. Brothers and sisters, premise number five years counter scholarly testimonies are not plausible, as they have to reject the established background information. Remember, when it comes to epistemology of testimony, you need to have background information, specifically, it with regards to inference to the best explanation, you have background information that's very important in order for you to make the correct inferences. So yes, I agree. There are some there are some scholars past and present, Muslim and non Muslim, maybe specifically rather non Muslim, that they say that the Quran is not inimitable, it's bad. Arabic, it's got
grammatical errors. It's got, you know, bad prose or whatever the case may be. Now, we don't have to take the testimony seriously, by virtue of the testimonies that we just discussed, that talk about the imitability of the Quran, but also because of important background and background information, because in order to take the counter testimonies, meaning in order to take seriously the scholars who say the Quran is not in imitability, inimitable, in order to take them seriously, you have to conclude some absurd, absurd conclusion. There are some absurd implications, brothers and sisters. So let me explain what these absurdities are. Now, if you adopt the counter testimonies of these so
called scholars that say the Quran is not inimitable,
you need an explanation you what is required is an explanation to answer why the seventh century Arabs couldn't produce any like the Quran, you have to provide an explanation.
And possible explanations would have to reject the validity of this establish history that the best Arabs couldn't produce anything like the Quran.
So therefore, these counter testimonial claims don't have the basis they have to remake or reinvent Arabic history or Arabic literary history from that perspective.
And one would argue that rejecting the established history would have to remake the history of Arabic literature. And not only that, they would have to assume these scholars who provide counter testimony that say the inimitable they would also have to assume that they are better than the seventh century linguists Arabic linguists
Which is ridiculous because we're gonna explain this later that today's Arabic you know one isn't doesn't internalize Arabic in a pure way because of what you call linguistic boring. We live in a heterogeneous linguistic culture, not a homogeneous linguistic culture. We're gonna explain that later. So those who are saying the nothing special about the Quran, they have to basically show that they're better than the seventh century Arabic linguists. Again, remaking history, these are all absurdities.
Also don't have to deny the challenge of the Quran because it's implied in the previous points that we just made.
But what's important is always that when we understand and we go deep into the accusations of some of these scholars who provide counter testimonies, and say the inimitable You know, when we go into the accusation, we see that they have very bad Arabic in the first place that you don't have to understand this for the argument, but sort of bring this to you. For example, take the highly acclaimed German orientalist Theodore Nordica. You know, he said that the Quran is ugly, it has a perceived ugliness, there's all these grammatical shifts. Well, with all due respect, he didn't understand Valletta, he didn't understand a deep science of Arabic rhetoric and eloquence, he had a
very shallow understanding of classical Arabic, because these shifts in in grammatical shifts or these reference shifting in the Quranic discourse, is part of the dynamic nature of the Quran, it enhances the communicative effect of the Quranic discourse, and this is known as lt fat. lt fat in the Arabic language, I believe means moving from one direction to the other, moving from one direction to the other, and there are many grammar grammatical shifts and these include change in person changing number changing adresi change, intense changing case smock using a noun in place of a pronoun and many other type of shifts and changes. And the function of these reference shifting of
these grammatical shifts are there to, to, to, to have a change of emphasis, to alert the reader to a particular manner to enhance the style of the text and have the communicative effect. It also impacts on the generating rhythm and flow to maintain the listeners attention and so on and so forth. So, a very powerful example is in the shortest chapter of the Quran Surah Al CalHFA. When Allah subhanho wa Taala says, verily re has given you the abundance, therefore turn to your tube in prayer to your Lord and sacrifice fee for he is the one who will be cut off. So in the beginning, Allah says,
Verily, We have given you the abundance. So the kind of reference to himself from a grammatical point of view, the kind of plural the majestic, plural we, that's in the first line, then the second verse, Allah says, For suddenly Europe became one. Therefore also, turn to your prayer. rugbytots. Turn in prayer to your Lord, turn to your Lord in prayer, or Rob Baker, your Lord
in prayer and sacrifice for suddenly therefore pray for suddenly Rob Baker for your Lord, for solid Europe become
one half turn to you, Lord, and sacrifice.
So this is very important. Now there is a shift in what's the shift. In the first verse, Allah refers to himself from the kind of the personal use of the pronoun the majestic plural, we have given the abundance. Then there's the grammatical shift for solidi Rob Baker, one half Rob, Rob Baker, you're up. So there's a shift from we to rob your Lord, there is a shift in reference in the referring to Allah, the personal pronoun rub, the kind of shift in terms of majestic plural to the more intimate or rub. Now why is that shift in place, this is not linguistic ugliness. This is lt fact. It's enhancing the communicative effect of the message. Because in the first verse is about
ability. Allah says, Verily, We have given you the abundance, the alpha, the river in Paradise, but it also comes from kathira, which you have here and UK photo and so many things. And you can see this as a form of ellipsis, as all that was given the abundance not only the river in Paradise, but many things to the process on a minister most praised. Everyone is praising the province on every microsecond on this earth, because of the constant avant because the time changes and people praising the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, so that we could unpack that later. But the point here is sort of like saying we have given you the abundant so the majestic, plural is used for
ability and this is used in European literature as well. The weak kings would say we to indicate power and ability, so it's enhancing
The meaning of the first verse, but then it shifts to things like spirituality and intimacy. Such Salah suddenly when know how to sacrifice, prayer and sacrifice the intimate spiritual matters. So Allah now is saying, for suddenly you're a bigger one. Therefore pray to your Lord and sacrifice. Allah is no saying, you know, pray to us and sacrifice. No pray to your Lord. Because Rob is more intimate it means your master your Lord, the one who nurtures you, the one who loves you, who cares for you. So this is enhancing the communicative effect of the second verse. So this shift is not haphazard. And when you study the Quran, and we don't have time to do this, these shifts happen and
they're in line with the meaning of the Kotex the surrounding linguistic items around the verses and the surrounding verses, it's there to enhance the cumulative communicative effect of the message. So it's not linguistic ugliness, in all due respect, so don't occur, didn't know his Arabic very well.
So this leads us to the sixth premise brothers and sisters, a very important premise brothers and sisters, the sixth premise.
So the sixth premise is as follows. Therefore, from premise one to five, the Quran is inevitable, because this is very simple to follow. It follows from points one to five that we just discussed, premises one to five, that the current inevitability is justified. So now we it leads us to premise number seven, the possible explanations for the current inevitability, our authorship by an Arab, by a non Arab by Mohammed sallallahu, ala he was alone or by Allah. Okay, let's talk about this a little bit further. So these are the plausible explanations, this what we're saying, to articulate the divine origins of the Quran, without referring to specifics about the Arabic language. We're
using testimony and inference, okay. And we've already established using testimony epistemology of testimony that the Quran is inimitable by a valid testimonial transmission. And now we're trying to infer from the inevitability of the Quran, which is based on valid testimony, that the Quran can only be from God. And the possible explanations are that it came from an Arab, it came from an Arab, and it came from or it came from Mohammed Salah it came from Allah. Now, however, it can be argued, there are other possible competing explanations, but we don't know what they are. Well hold on a second. This is irrational. Because this assertion commits a type of fallacy that some have called
the fallacy of the Phantom option is a ghost option, there may be another option, we're just not aware of it. This is not rational reasoning, this is not a valid use of the inference to the best explanation. If you do have another explanation, bring it on the table, and let's discuss it. If you don't have a valid explanation, then deal with the explanations at hand.
So premise number eight, the premise before the conclusion. It could not have been produced by an Arab, it could not have been produced by non Arab, and it could not have been produced by Muhammad sallallahu alayhi wa sallam let's now unpack this and get into this into detail. First and foremost, we know it cannot be produced by an Arab, because the best linguists the seventh century ABS at the time, admitted defeat, for example, and will lead even more era, he was one of the famous linguists of the time, he actually admitted defeat. And he says, and what can I say, for I swear by Allah, there is none amongst you who knows poetry as well as I do know can any compete with me in
composition or rhetoric, not even in the poetry of gins? And yet I swear by Allah, Mohammed speech, meaning the Quran does not bear bear Any similarity to anything I know. And I swear by Allah, the speech that he says is very sweet and is adorned with beauty and charm, okay? And one would argue, why did he become Muslim? Well, from what I remember, he didn't become Muslim because he thought that someone promised him that him not being a Muslim, he still will be saved or something to that effect. Such was the arrogance of such people. But the point is the best Arabs admitted defeat from that perspective. And remember what we said previously, from the argument that I refer to that
that's in my book, referring to the chapter Gods testimony, and just to repeat,
no movement can succeed if a claim fundamental to its core is explicitly proven false. The fact that the meccan leadership had to resort to extreme campaigns, such as warfare and torture, to attempt to extinguish Islam demonstrates that the easy method of refuting Islam which is meeting the Quranic challenge, failed, they couldn't do it, they couldn't produce it. Because remember, as we read out the rest of the passage previously, that the Quran came and refuted the social, political, moral realities of the Arabs of the time and this was affecting their lifestyle, their culture, their economic activity, but all they had to do and this is when Islam was we can it's early stages, all
they had to do is produce three lines like
No one would have taken it seriously would have been dismissed.
But they know they think they couldn't do it. And they knew they couldn't do it. So what do they do they resorted to war and boycott and torture. What does this say about the ability of the best out of the time that were best placed to change the Quran? What does it mean about that? That they were incapacitated? Of course they were, they couldn't imitate the Quranic discourse. So they failed to do so. It. And we could argue from that perspective, it couldn't have come from an era because these were the best Arabs of the time. Now, one would argue, what about today's art? Well hold on a second, just from a kind of philosophical, linguistic perspective, we can't even take this
seriously. Today's Arab today's I've come from a linguistic culture, which is basically called a heterogeneous culture. You know, just as a crude example, when you go to Egypt, and you say tea to you, and you you hear like a mother saying, you know, where is the phone? She should say something like a narrative, where is the phone? But what she might say is, ain't a telephone, right? Oh, ain't the television. Where is the TV? Right? So there's so much linguistic, boring, I don't even know there was linguistic boring of the other time as well. But the type of linguistic boring at the time of the seventh century was linguistic boring, it didn't affect the purity of the language, and the
internalization of the language because those though that linguistic boring, became part of the Arabic language. And this is well known because there are some, you know, foreign origin words in the Quran, such as Jana, my believe, in other words, but those words were already naturalized, there was a naturalization process. But when it comes to today's Arabic, we have this kind of the less pure environment, linguistic environment is not homogeneous is heterogeneous, as I've just discussed, and therefore, naturally, you know, someone's natural expression of the Arabic language, which is not going to be anywhere near the seventh century Arabs. Also what we said in the beginning
about the culture and the social, political, linguistic environment of the time facilitated people to become masters in Arabic. We don't have that today from that perspective to just so to say, today's Arab is actually completely unfounded, and one would have to claim better expression and intuitive and natural expression of the Arabic language than the seventh century Arabs, which is totally unfounded.
So we know you cannot come from an Arab. What about a non Arab? Well, the Quran mentions is very clearly in chapter 16, verse 103, and indeed, we know that what they that they that they the politics and pagans say, it is only a human being who teaches him meaning Mohammed salam, the the tongue of the man, they refer to his foreign, but this speech is our ob une movie, this is clear Arabic. Now this is so true. And non Arab couldn't produce the plan, because it had to come from an Arab, right you have to know Arabic to try and produce anything like the book of Allah subhana wa Tada. So this is extremely important for us to, you know, understand. Now, one would argue about if
a non Arab learner learn the language, now that will make the person Arabic speaker and therefore would refer to the previous point we just made. However, and this is very interesting in linguistics, there are differences between native and non native speakers of language, as various academic studies and Applied Linguistics and similar fields have completed. For instance, in the English language, there are differences between native and non native speakers. In reliably discriminating between literal and idiomatic speech. differences exist between English speakers with one non native parent and those with native parents. The speakers with one non native parent exhibit
worse linguistic performance on certain tasks than those who native parents. Even in cases of non native speakers having indistinguishable indistinguishable linguistic competence with native speakers, there are still subtle link linguistic differences. So research conducted by Kenneth How can Stam and Nicholas abrahamsson in who can.
Who can become native like in a second language, all some or none, concluded that competent non native speakers exhibit features that are imperceptible except under detailed and systematic linguistic analysis. Therefore, to conclude that the Quran with his inimitable features as a linguistic masterpiece is a product of a non Arab or non native speaker is untenable.
So the next option, maybe it came from the Prophet sallallahu ala he was sending, right? Well, it does a few things to say this, this is impossible. Number one, he was an Arab, right and the best Arabs failed to produce anything like so logically for those he didn't produce the Quran. Secondly, after the initial accusations that the Arab linguists after the initial accusations that he produced the Quran, when they start to understand the literary power of the Quran, and the literary inevitability of the crown that ibid linguist never accused of being an author in actual fact, they said that it was magic. Oh,
We have to understand that the Quran is a literary masterpiece. The Quran is a literary masterpiece. As with all literary masterpieces, brothers and sisters, we have to understand that, you know, literary masterpieces are not revealed instantaneously. Right? They're revealed over a particular time with careful amendment, careful expression, careful, collation, careful, addition, careful revision, and so on and so forth. No one produces a literary masterpiece as sustained instantaneous eloquence. But the Quran as it was revealed it stayed the same. It was an edited, it wasn't changed. Even in abrogation, when we talk about abrogation in the Quranic discourse. The verses that abrogate
are still in the Quran and is still part of the literary excellence of the Quranic discourse. There was no, there's no stylistic editing, there's no editing with regards to rhetoric and eloquence, yet it's known to be a literary masterpiece, but literary masterpiece have developed over time with addition and revision, but the Quran as a literary masterpiece, as it was revealed it remained. How can this be a human being from a human being? How can it be from Mohammed Salah? Well, I think it would send them because the human reality when it comes to literary masterpieces that you edit, change, revise. But the Quran as a literary masterpiece was no addition, no revision.
Also, we have to understand the psycholinguistic content of the Quran. Now can't unpack this right now. But it does require further study. But when you do a psycho linguistic analysis of the Quranic discourse, you see it's in the divine voice. How can this be the case? If it was the words of the process Salaam, then you would see from a psycho linguistic perspective, and the careful linguistic analysis you see subtle, linguistic, emotional cues to indicate it came from a man to indicate came from the postal salon to reflect his life, because his life was peaks and troughs. We know he was boycotted, and told tortured and abused and his Sahaba passed away, his wife passed away his
children died, he went to war and so on and so forth. All of this emotion cannot be found in the Quranic discourse, from a human perspective, when you do a psycho linguistic study and psycholinguistics is part of it. It's a domain of knowledge. When you do a psycholinguistic study of the Quran, he remains the divine voice, how can this be the case? How can you have such a distinction? Hi, how can you have such a psycho linguistic distinction between the prophetic statements and the Quran, if you claim the Quran came from the Prophet sallallahu, alayhi wasallam. This is impossible. Finally, this is one is a it's a defeating argument, it defeats this argument so
called that the process Sonam actually produced the Quran.
If the blueprint exists, you can imitate it, any form of expression, literary expression, artistic expression, expression, if you have the blueprint, the tools at your disposal, you are able to produce it, we'd see this with art with Impressionism or post Impressionism, with the art of Monet, or whoever the case may be. When you have the blueprint, you have the the tools at your disposal, you could actually now reproduce, reproduce. And that's why many replicas are very expensive, from an artistic perspective. Now, we have the blueprint today, which is the Quran, we have the tools at our disposal, which are the finite 20 letters. And we have the grammatical rules when we can't put
this together to produce anything like the Quranic discourse, if it was human expression. And if the blueprint exists, and the tools our disposal exists, we can exhaust those tools or use those tools to produce that expression. But given the fact that the Crown's blueprint exists, and the tools exist, namely the grammar, the letters and so on, and so forth, we can't use them to produce any like the Quran. And the Arabs were best place to do so in the seventh century couldn't do so either. So this means it cannot come from a human being because if it came from a human being and the blueprint exists, and the tools exist, then we shouldn't be able to replicate, but it wasn't
imitated in any shape or form.
So it couldn't have come from the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam. Now, what's very important for everybody to understand is that, you know, trying to conclude that well, the way to argue this is to show that the person was like a literary genius. Well, how can you make such a claim? How can you say that the person is a genius? That's like an argument it doesn't really make sense by virtue of disgust is unfounded. Why? Because remember, literally geniuses what they do is when they produce excellent work, they edit, amend and improve the work as we just discussed previously, this was not the case with the crown. And all human expressions can be imitated if we have the blueprint and
tools our disposal as we just discussed, and this has been shown
For geniuses such as Shakespeare, and Al matambi.
Therefore, if the Quran had been a result of Mohammed some genius, it should be able to be imitated by virtue of what we discussed concerning the blueprint and the tools at our disposal.
this is something very important for us to, to highlight and discuss. So, and that's why when you say, oh, what about Shakespeare? What about? Well, Shakespeare didn't have sustained on edited and unchanged unmatched eloquence, I will admit to not be didn't have sustained on edited and unchanged unmatch eloquent quotes. But the Quran had sustained unedited and unmatched eloquence or unmatched superior literary features. And that's why you can't claim he is a genius from that perspective. Because genius is when they produce linguistic expression or linguistic work or literary work. That it's it's, it's a sustained effort, but it's edited and amended over time. But with regard to the
Quran, it was sustained, unmatched eloquence, sustained unmatching unedited eloquence, which is not a feature of any literary genius, especially concerning the size of the book of the Quran itself. So finally, our conclusion brothers and sisters, God is the only best explanation. Since the Quran couldn't have been produced by an Arab, it could not have produced could not have been produced by non Arab, or the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wasallam, it follows that the best explanation is that it came from Allah subhanho wa Taala. This provides the best explanation for the current and imitability because the other explanations are untenable in light of the available knowledge and the
background knowledge. And why would I get this stage? What about alternative inferences? You know, you know, alternative inferences could include that the Quran is best explained by a higher being, or that it could have come from the devil, as some of our Christian brothers and sisters actually say, but this is unfounded, brothers and sisters, because the reason it's unfounded is that look, postulating that the Quran comes from a higher being, seems to be a semantic replacement. For God, it's like a good replacement, right? Also, what is meant by a higher being, is not the best explanation of a higher being God Himself. If higher being implies a greater linguistic power,
capacity and ability than a human, then who can best fit these crutches then cut himself.
Also, if you what you need to understand as well, is that, you know, when we have separate evidences for God's existence, we also understand that it's very likely that that God will communicate with us. This follows from the fact that not only is a law of God, the Creator and design of the entire cosmos that we inhabit, but he also made it fit for existence. In addition, He created us with souls or consciousness, and instilled a sense of morality. So clearly, God is very, extremely invested
in our existence and flourish. So as such, it's, it's extremely likely that he would want to communicate to us in the form of Revelation. So this is very important. You say hi, being is a semantic replacement of God and high beings were ambiguous. Is this another Phantom option? Is this the fallacy of the Phantom option? Okay, what is this IB? Right, we've given you a really good explanation, which is God Himself. What is this higher mean?
Right? Or is this just another Phantom option, right, which is a logical fallacy, as we discussed in the beginning, now, there is a theistic response to this, like many Christians are Christian brothers and sisters who say that maybe the Quran came from the devil. Well, this explanation is untenable as well. And listen, and I've and I've written this in the book that you can download for free on our website, the Quran could not have come from the devil or some type of spirit, because the basis of their existence is in the Quran and revelation itself, not an empiric not empirical evidence. Therefore, if someone claims at the source of the Quran, and is the devil, they would have
to prove prove that his In other words, the devil's existence, and ultimately would have to prove revelation. In the case of using the Quran as the revelation to establish that there was existence, then that would already establish the divine text that would establish it as a divine text, because to believe in the devil his existence would presuppose the Quran to be divine, and therefore, this contention is self defeating. If, however, the revelation that you referred to is the Bible, it must, it must be shown to be valid, it must be shown to be a valid basis to justify the belief in the devil. Now, with all due respect, you can't use the Bible to justify the belief in anything in
my view, because in light of contemporary studies in the texture, integrity and historicity and and historicity of the Bible, this is not feasible. Also, further content analysis of the Quran was
strongly indicated the book is not the teachings of the devil, as the Quran rebukes him and promotes morals and ethics, not in line with an evil world view. So, in conclusion, brothers and sisters, we have formulated a powerful argument, develop a premises with a conclusion,
which rests upon the background information and understanding of epistemology of testimony and inference to the best explanation. And we really haven't even referred to any of the special features linguistic features in the Quranic discourse. And you're able to articulate this to to non Muslims and people who don't have the expertise and even to to non Arabs. And let me just summarize this argument for you to see how easy you can summarize this with regards to the dour with regards to articulating this to our brothers and sisters in humanity. So it could be done in a couple of couple of paragraphs.
The Quran was revealed in Arabia to the Prophet Mohammed Solomon's seventh century in the seventh century. This period was known as an era of literary and linguistic perfection. The seventh century Arabs were socialized into being a people who were best who were the best expressing themselves in their native tongue. They would celebrate when a point was among amongst them and all they knew was poetry. They would start with poetry and end with poetry. The cultivation of poetic skills and linguistic mastery was everything. for them. It was the oxygen and lifeblood, they could not live a function without the perfection of the linguistic abilities. However, when the animals recited to
them, they lost their breath. They were dumbfounded, incapacitated and stunned by the silence of the greatest experts. They could not produce anything like the Quranic discourse, it got worse. The Quran challenges linguists par excellence to imitate his unique literary linguistic features, but they failed. Some experts accepted the Quran was from God, but most reported to boycott war, murder, torture and a campaign of misinformation. In fact, throughout the centuries, experts have acquired the tools to challenge the Quran, and they too have testified the Queen's inimitable, and appreciate why the best linguists have failed, however, kind of non Arab or non expert of the Arabic language
appreciate the immutability of the Quran, and to now the role of testimony. The above assertions are based on an established written or testimonial transmission of knowledge from past and present scholars of the Arabic language if this is true, and the people best placed to change the Quran failed to imitate the divine discourse, then who is the author? This is where testimony stops, and the use of inference begins. In order to understand the inference of the best explanation the possible rationalizations of the inimitable nature must be analyzed. These include that it was authored by an Arab and non Arab Mohammed cinema God, considering all the facts that that we
discussed so far, it is implausible that the crowds in imitability can be explained by attribute to an Arab and on a on Mohammed sallallahu. It he was seldom for that reason, God is the inference to the best explanation. And that's a summary of everything that we unpack today so far. So
after one hour and 30 minutes and 17 seconds, brothers and sisters, let's now take some questions.
there's some really funny questions. So
yeah, this this, this, that's, let's be
this be mature here. Right. So
let's get some questions. So if you if you don't mind, start asking some questions now.
Okay, so I'm just waiting for some questions. It seems to be a slight delay.
Why does Georges Ryan with gorgeous, that's very funny. Let's keep it professional and mature, please.
Okay, so Mohammed says this argument. This argument is so watertight. I don't think there are any questions upon Allah. Well, there's always questions. There's always questions.
Okay, so there's no many Any questions? Okay, there's one question here, I believe. Okay, very good. So it's disappeared. So the question here is, I recall reading somewhere that the Hadeeth language is very different from the Arabic language very similar. Very few similarities and words. Have you heard this as well? Yeah, an extra fact that I've got a video on this is a very old video with me and Seville, we cite a actual linguistic, linguistic study in a paper, which was very good. He did like a kind of linguistic statistical analysis between Buhari and the Quran. And he concluded just based on the kind of statistics that the that the the came up with, that it shows that it was
completely two different authors. Now, obviously, like with most academic studies, the reason I haven't referred to this study, because there was some, you know, kind of academic limitations to the methodology of the study. But yes, you're right. When we do a study of the Hadith literature, when you do a study, even from a statistical perspective on the use of words, and the style and the stylistics of the particular Hadith literature, whether it's in Bihari or Muslim, whatever the case may be, you see, there is a clear distinction between the Quranic discourse and the Hadith of the Prophet SAW, Allah Allahu it, he was seldom.
And this is very important to understand, no one would argue, well, this doesn't make it, you know, from God. No, we're not saying that. But it's one it's one of the features, it's one of the criteria of ensuring that you didn't come from the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, that that there is that clear distinction? Yes, we know, you know, normal human beings, they have different use of language and statistical, linguistic variants, and so on and so forth. When they do when they sing when they have the right songs on when they recite poetry, or when they
you know, if they're rappers, for example, there is a distinct style. But yet, from a statistical linguistic point of view, there are, you know, one would argue many similarities from the normal speech, and from the speech if they're rapping or singing or reciting poetry. But, you know, when, when it comes to the Quranic discourse, there is a very, very clear distinction. And that's it doesn't mean it's from God. But it's a very important thing to mention. Because if there was similarities in, you know, linguistic, in statistical use of certain words, and there was a similarity in stylistic variants and style, and so on and so forth. That would be very problematic
to say that it came from God because it looks like very, very similar to the prophets words sort of love it, who was sending, but given the fact that there is a clear distinction between prophetic narrative and Quranic narrative than this is extremely helpful. And there has been some research on this. And I have cited that research previously, but I removed it because an academic show to me there was some methodological issues. I don't think there were major, but it's always best to be robust, but your point is very true. And it's a very key point which I should have mentioned and just love for him. Allah bless you.
Yes, is very good, very good question. So wouldn't the method by which the Quran was revealed many times on the spot to address questions, social logic, social, social, political issues, etc, become part of the chronic challenge is part of the chronic challenge. You know, at Sapiens Institute, we're developing a course to basically
articularly the veracity of the Quran, this is one argument, but we have an argument concerning structural coherence. And this is very important for us to understand because, you know, the Quran was revealed, many of his verses were revealed for specific time and place for specific issues or circumstances. And many of these verses addressed those issues yet, the Quran has come together in a coherent literary structural piece in a structural way, in a very, very, very coherent, and, you know, for example, we have things like ring composition and other structural coherent features, literary features.
And, you know, one would argue, well, that's not very special, because people have coherent writing all the time. Yeah, for sure, but the nature of his coherence is quite specific, ie Ring, ring composition and other aspects. But it it was done so with with instance, understanding was done so with the idea, or from the perspective that many of the verses were revealed for specific time and places yet they formed a coherent piece, a deep structural coherent piece from a literary perspective. This is phenomenal. Why? Because it means the author knew the future
That's what it means.
Because how can you develop a literary structural piece when you're addressing specific situations across a particular period of time.
In order for you to be able to do that, it means you already knew what was going to happen. And you provided those verses or those responses in a way that will create that type of structural coherence. And there's a really good book by chef Mohammed Abdullah duras is called the tunnel challenge, and he discusses he's got a beautiful quote, a beautiful quote, concerning the structural features of the Quranic discourse. I don't know if I put it in my book I should have. It's just, it's phenomenal. Let me see if I can find it. Bear with me. It's concerning the kind of structural features of, of the Quran and this point I've just made, and he's made, he made it in a much
eloquent way, when he talked about, you know, how on earth could
the, the Prophet salallahu it he was sending him? How could I know if the Quran be from a man from a human being? Based on what we just said? Actually, let me try. Let me try and find it online because I do believe I have referenced it on in another essay, or somewhere else. Just bear with me, as long as I really want to read it. It's a beautiful quote. coherence.
It's a beautiful, beautiful, I'm the type of my surname It's all because it might come together. Because I have referenced it.
Bear with me. Yes, I think is here.
There's a PDF.
Okay, so let me just find it fee.
Yeah, here we go. You ready, guys?
When we consider carefully the timing of the revelation of the Quranic passages and servers and the arrangements, we are profoundly astonished. We almost belie what we see and hear. We then begin to ask ourselves for an explanation of this highly improbable phenomenon. Is it not true that this new passage of revelation has just been heard as new addressing a particular event, which is his only concern? It sounds as though it is neither new nor separate from the rest? It seems as if it has been along with the rest of the Quran perfectly impressed on this man's mind long before he has resigned it to us. He has been fully engraved on his heart before its composition. In the words he
recites How else can it unite so perfectly harmoniously parts and pieces that do not naturally come together? Is it a result of an experiment that follows a spontaneous thought that could not be the case? When each part was put in his position? The one who placed them never had a new four introduced any modification or rearrangement? How then could he have determined his plan? How could he have made his intention so clear in advance, when we consider such detailed instructions on the arrangements of passages and series, we are bound to conclude that there is a complete and detailed plan assigning the position of each passage before they are all revealed. Indeed, the arrangement is
made before the reasons leading to the revelation of any passage occur. And even before the start of the preliminary causes of such events, such as the plain facts about the region of the Quran, as it was revealed in separate verses, passages and throughs over a period was 23 years. What does that tell us about its source? brothers or sisters? What else can I say? That was the eloquent words of chef Mohammed? Abdullah draws, and mela subhana wa telegraph brought him janitor for those.
Absolutely, boom, Islam is true. That's one big bosses soccer a big boss. Maryam says, Allahu Akbar. Indeed Allah is greater.
Okay, so brothers and sisters, in order for you to get all the references in the slides. All you need to do is go to Sapiens institute.org forward slash books and download the divine reality and go to chapter 13. I think it's chapter 13. And I have an essay called God's testimony. And it's everything I've mentioned is mentioned this essay with a little bit more, and it's got all the references for you, brothers and sisters. Okay, so without further ado, I
I need to go now May Allah Subhana, Allah bless you is it's phenomenal. I'm going to do more of these in sha Allah, please give us your feedback, please share this with people, you know, this is we provide this content for free. You know, if you you know, I think you appreciate that it's nuanced. It's philosophically robust. It's more references, a lot of research has gone behind this. It is, you know, hopefully
timeless from the point of view that it's not based on certain evidences that we know today, it's based on you know, on concepts and first principles and evidences that are not going to necessarily change in any shape or form. And therefore, it's a timeless argument that we can use today, tomorrow. And in the future, our job is to internalize it and be able to articulate on a proper level and academic and intellectual and mid range level as well. But that's your job to continue the journey. So this is this part of the journey, please download the book, read the particular chapter, go to the references, understand this argument, revisit this seminar even further. Again, revisit
again brothers and sisters, and I pray you know, it's inspired you in some way. And you know, we're going to have we're going to do these academic webinars inshallah every week, the first one was on
beauty God, God, God's beauty and the recognition of God. Last week was by that was by chef Fattah slim. This week, last week was by Dr. Manoj teef. And he was I can't, I can't breathe on empathy dehumanization othering and racism today was on the goes testimony articulating the linguistic miracle of the Quran and in a way that doesn't require you or the person that you're talking to, to know anything about the Arabic language and it rests upon the epistemology of testimony and inference to the best explanation. And next week, we're going to have a special one for you as well in sha Allah. So brothers and sisters, may Allah bless every single one of you and grant you the
best in this life and the best in the life to come.
And you know, stay safe, stay peaceful. Stay well be good to each other love for others we love yourself which is a Sahih Hadith from the prophets of Salaam narrated by Buhari is entering our career and specific Arabic is not a he is not just your brother, it says Lin ness, human beings and we know this means if you go to the works of and now we and Maliki scholar even topicality. This means that we must be committed to the goodness and guidance for all people. And that's what Muslims should be. should be. That's our state of being. So anything I've said that is good has come from Allah subhanho wa Taala anything wrong and bad has come from my ego, my knifes and she's done as
salaam y de como Rahmatullah. He will cut