1

I'm sorry for the lack of imagination regarding the title of this question but it sums up pretty much the main idea.

I would like to know if there is an event (or many events) on which it could be really difficult to lie or twist some facts in the Holy Quran that prove that the Quran is truly the word of God.

Ok, I know it's not clear enough so let me show you one example of what I mean by that.

In the Torah, the fact that more than two millions people witnessed God speaking is one strong point:

On the fiftieth day after they began counting the Omer--that is, fifty-one days after the Exodus, all of the Children of Israel, men, women and children, over two million people, stood at Mount Sinai and received the Torah amidst great miracles and heavenly fire. They saw no form or picture of G-d, but they saw many miracles that proved that G-d is the Creator of heaven and earth. They heard G-d's voice speak and command Moses to instruct the Children of Israel on how to prepare to receive the Torah. Then they heard G-d speaking directly to them, the Children of Israel, and commanding them to keep the Torah. The Children of Israel accepted the Torah and all its Commandments, and they said: "We agree to obey, even before we hear the actual Commandments."

Since there were millions of people it would have been difficult to elaborate a (complex) lie with all of them and then spread it after. We are speaking of millions of witnesses.

There are also all the prophecies regarding the Jewish nation that have been fulfilled: diaspora, hatred and persecution, survival of the jews away from their homeland, return of the jews to their homeland, Jerusalem will become an international problem, etc.

Does the Holy Quran has such events or strong points to rely on? Because in the end we should rely more on knowledges than beliefs.

2

The melting-point of your line of reasoning is the definition of fact and its relation to truth. In vernacular, the two are often used interchangeably, but in theory they are not the same. The relation between fact and truth can be:

  • A fact is something that a true statement refers to.
    This is how Jews regard the verses of Torah and Muslims the verses of Quran, i.e. the national revelation at Mount Sinai is a fact because of the truthfulness of the scripture and tradition.
  • A fact is something that makes a statement true.
    This is the definition of fact that is in vogue in current times. If based on empirical evidence it is the scientific method's understanding of truthfulness.

The latter conception of facts and truth is supplementary and in a way supererogatory for a believer, i.e. you can continue to believe in the truthfulness of the scripture without requiring it to be based on facts. Interestingly, however, when we look at "other" scriptures we switch to the latter conception of facts establishing the truthfulness, e.g. Jews scrutinizing the Quran.

Which of the two categories of fact does the story of national revelation belong to? It cannot be posited as a verifiable fact that makes the scripture true. It is rather the truth of the scripture and the tradition (Sunnah in the Muslim jargon) that makes it a fact. Just for example, Dawkins is immune to facts of the former kind and I don't think Torah and Quran put together can make him believe in the revelation on Sinai, let alone a national revelation.

It is therefore incorrect to say "in the end we should rely more on knowledge than beliefs" Even if we assume that two million actually heard God, its just lore for their subsequent generations - who after all have to believe in the traditions. In other words, it was knowledge only for the original witnesses and faith for later and present day Jews.

As for the prophecies, initially these are truths pointing to facts and after their fulfillment they become facts reinforcing the truths.

The OP said "Since there were millions of people it would have been difficult to elaborate a (complex) lie with all of them and then spread it after."

First, you are talking about tradition and not the Torah here, because if its just about the scripture then only a few lines have to be adulterated with to concoct an idea. There aren't millions of independent writers of Torah all converging on the issue of national consensus!

Secondly, millions of people concocting a lie is unimaginable, but what about millions of people mistaken? What if that was just an angel or a demon? Magic? The ball is once again in the court of faith. There is no irrefutable fact.

Lastly, since the OP asked "Does the Holy Quran has such events or strong points to rely on?"

You are most certainly looking for facts that can be empirically proven, because otherwise, for the Muslims, the whole of Quran is truth. Muslims correctly recognize the interplay of faith and revelation and don't base the credibility of the revelation on quality or "quantity" of empirical evidence, since it doesn't matter anyway. Even seven billion witnesses today receiving revelation are pure anecdotes a hundred years from now. One witness or one billion is all the same.

Regarding prophecies, Quran too has prophecies and the stories of ancients like the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, the people of Aad and Thamud. The return of Jews to their homeland is just one example of a prophecy in Quran.

  • Thank you Shoaib for this answer. However I tend to believe that the more witnesses you have, the less it's easy to twist the reality without being spotted. Of course jews nowadays also rely on beliefs, but putting your belief system on something witnessed by millions of people, even from the past, is not like putting your trust/beliefs on the experience of one or two individuals. If you only rely on faith and revelations from the scriptures then why should we trust Muahammad (pbuh) over Joseph Smith? LDS do not recognize Muahammad [pbuh] as a real prophet and they gave us another scripture. – TruthSeeker Oct 18 '15 at 16:45
  • The question "Why should non-Muslims trust Muhammad?" deserves separate treatment as its similar to "Why should non-Jews trust the story of national revelation?" The point I've tried to make in the answer is that the first-witnesses of both Moses (puh) and Muhammad (puh) experienced miracles and divine presense, and the lore & trust has been transmitted verbally and orally, through generations; we've inherited trust as well. Obviously, this doesn't mean the traditions don't possess any substance other than trust that can inspire an agnostic. – user549 Oct 18 '15 at 17:31
  • But if a muslim does not trust the national revelation, then he does not think Moses (pbuh) is a prophet. But muslims do right? I just don't get to which extent millions of witnesses or one is the same to you. Let's say we have one witness of you murdering someone else, is not different that if we have instead billions of witnesses? Don't you think that if we publish today a book pretending that billions of people have seen another prophet the next day we can have a different opinion from those people ("it's not true!", "no I wasn't here!", ...). So why nobody raised up at that time? – TruthSeeker Oct 19 '15 at 0:20

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.