u/TexanLoneStar

The Qur'an in multiple places challenges the reader to produce a chapter like it (2:23, 10:38, 11:13, 17:88, 52:33–34). The implication being, in most streams of Sunni thought (Ash'ari, Athari, Maturidi) that the actual contents of the Qur'an text itself is beyond the capability of human replication, and is thus divine in origin.

If we reverse this Qur'anic challenge we can rephrase it as such: "What in a surah can only God compose?"

For the purpose of this debate and challenge I would like to retain the challenge to Surah al-Ikhlas for several reasons: 1) because it's a surah I have personally memorized; 2) it's a powerful surah that gives a concise Islamic creed; 3) it arguably has intertexual allusions to the Shema and Nicene Creed, refuting Judaism, Christianity, and polytheism at the same time. 4) Because it's short, it's easy to work with.

Muslims: What in Surah al-Ikhlas can only God produce that a human cannot? That it rhymes? Impressive, but not a miracle or proof of divine origin. That it uses Arabic at the highest caliber? Impressive, but the former. That it is a powerful creed while simultaneously refuting other creeds? Amazing polemical rhetoric, but, again, that's not a miracle or proof of divine origin. That nothing in the world resembles the Qur'an? This I would (to the surprise of Muslims) actually largely agree with: that nothing else really resembles the Qur'an. But this something being it's own unique literary genre doesn't mean it's a miracle or divine in origin either.

The best answer I've gotten from Muslims is that "It's a cumulative case of these factors combined." -- fair enough, but this is an answer based on faith; not on any sort of demonstrative proof that there's something proper to Surah al-Ikhlas that only God alone can write.

What precisely can God alone write in Surah al-Ikhlas that a human cannot? Be specific.

Going from the Desert Fathers who talked about it (Abba Isaac in Conferences, Evargrius, etc.) to St. Maximos the Confessor I'm looking for a sort of good compilative book that talks about pure prayer and it's theological development. What's interesting is that in the western contemplative tradition it seems to have fallen into obscurity after the Benedictine Order (who doubtlessly hold it due to Conferences being on frequent reading per their monastic rule) began to progressively diverge from Middle Eastern and Byzantine ideas.

Sort of like mmm... how there's manuals out there post 1600s that go pretty indepth about the "levels of prayer" given by St. Teresa of Avila. Something similar.

Let's assume for the sake of the post the connection between Matthew 10 and Surah 61 is true.

Just trying to clarify something reading what I can from the paper:

1. The Qur'an, as per usual, is knowingly and purposeful "corrective retelling" of the Bible story by removing Matthew's attribution of Isaiah 42's servant applicated to Jesus; and now giving a new story in which Jesus now prophesies that same servant.

2. Another perceived "corrective retelling": it corrects "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit" by replacing it with "Who does more wrong than the one who fabricates lies about Allah?" implicitly removing the claim of divinity to the Holy Spirit.

Am I on track here? Or is the Qur'an not giving any sort of corrective retelling like it does for a ton of stuff?

Luke 24

>Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.”

In the 7:157 when it speakes of the ummi prophet being written in the Torah and Gospel, there's been a shift in academic understanding to it being a lot less literal and more along the lines of the above: that it's a generic notion that the content and themes point towards a fulfillment of something. Clearly not all the prophets (Iddo, the unnamed "man of God", Amos) point to things in their brief or unrecorded oracles.

Now, for Luke (and the other canonical Gospels) it's a lot easier to discern what precisely the Scriptures its referring to; but for 7:157 its much more ambiguous.

Still, is this an apt comparison between both scriptures?

(PS sorry if this isn't worded the best, I am minorly sleep deprived an trippin because my room mates doing dumb stuff)

I used a pretty cool program out there called Cold Turkey blocker. Many style of blocking options but back in December I chose to start with 1 hour on, 1 hour off. And each week I would slowly tape: 59m on, 1h1m off; 58m on, 1h2m off... and so on.

There were signs of progress: I began to sometimes legitimately enjoy things in my time off but once I hit, after around 2 or 3 months, 45 minutes on, 1 hour 15 minutes off I just collapsed and hard core relapsed. When I went back to binging my brain felt normal.

But something about the blocked period felt nasty. Unnatural. It, oddly enough, made me feel MORE ADDICTED and, as I've began to put the blocked back on after my relapse... I hate it. It feels like it just sort of controls the external but doesn't heal the internal reason why I'm so addicted. On the contrary, whenever I have free access to the internet but, on my own accord, get up to choose and walk, go to the gym, or do something else it all feels very liberating. Like I'm not controlled. Like I have power over myself.

Anyone else had this experience with the downside of blockers? Any alternative ideas?

>The Traditionalist view is that the expression al nabī al ummiyy (the unschooled or heathen prophet) is an epithet used exclusively for the Prophet Muḥammad. I do not agree with that view, and these are my reasons: from 7:103 to this point (over 50 verses), the narrative is focused solely on the history of Mūsā. Mūsā was not schooled in the Writ; rather, he received the Writ by means of revelation. Under the dominant Egypt-Palestine thesis, he was brought up as an Egyptian; under the Arabia Felix and ʿAsīr-Ḥejāz theses, he was brought up in the house of a tribal chief named Firʿawn. In any event, by the standard we use here to judge ummiyy (i.e. one outside or ignorant of the Writ) Mūsā was — at least until he received the Writ — fully ummiyy. The expression al nabī al ummiyy (the unschooled or heathen prophet) occurs just twice in the Qur’an — here and in the next verse. Due to his disproportionate emphasis on Muḥammad, the Traditionalist, in my opinion, has missed the point being made here. The point is not that Muḥammad was unlearned and therefore the Qur’an is all the more a miracle (which is the version the Traditionalist promulgates); it is that Mūsā was unschooled in the Writ and so was Muḥammad. The Traditionalist view places the narrative pivot after the long account of Mūsā here at 7:157. But it is simply not there. It comes in the next verse (Say thou[...]). Logically speaking, at 7:157 the person being described is the same individual the previous 53 verses were dedicated to; namely: Mūsā. It is Mūsā who is [...]the unschooled prophet — whom they find written with them in the Torah and the Gospel[...] (to the end of the verse). It is only at 7:158 that the narrative shifts to Muḥammad. The point of this device, in my opinion, is to establish a correlation between the first unschooled prophet Mūsā (who brought his people out of bondage and gave them a Writ) and Muḥammad who had a comparable mission for the whole of humanity. Having established this correlation, the narrative then returns to the story of Mūsā.

This is a pretty compelling exegesis; but I am a bit confused; in some English translations of the Qur'an it's not quite clear where God's dialogue with Moses ends, and God speaks in "Qur'anic mode" once again.

Sahih International has a break here:

>"My punishment - I afflict with it whom I will, but My mercy encompasses all things" So I will decree it [especially] for those who fear Me and give zakāh and those who believe in Our verses-

The Clear Qur'an has messed up quotation marks, with a non-ending one and it's not clear:

>Allah replied, “I will inflict My torment on whoever I will. But My mercy encompasses everything. I will ordain mercy for those who shun evil, pay alms-tax, and believe in Our revelations. **“˹**They are˺ the ones who follow the Messenger˹They are˺ the ones who follow the Messenger

The Oxford Translation has quotations that run all the way through and would match up with Gerson's commentary:

>God said, ‘I bring My punishment on whoever I will, but My mercy encompasses all things. ‘I shall ordain My mercy for those who are conscious of God and pay the prescribed alms; who believe in Our Revelations; who follow the Messenger- the unlettered prophet they find described in the Torah that is with them, and in the Gospel- who commands them to do right and forbids them to do wrong, who makes good things lawful to them and bad things unlawful, and relieves them of their burdens, and the iron collars that were on them. So it is those who believe him, honour and help him, and who follow the light which has been sent down with him, who will succeed.’

Which is it?... Gerson's commentary also confuses me because; if the break happens much later, then God is speaking to Moses about Moses being in the Gospel. Which wouldn't make much sense. Gerson says 7:157 is about Moses; and the pivot happens at 7:158.