Quran chapter 3, verse 56

Disbelievers will be severely punished in this world. Allah says in Quran 3:56,

And as for those who disbelieved, I will punish them with a severe punishment in this world and the Hereafter, and they will have no helpers

Let's see what the punishment is for the Disbelievers who disbelieved in Allah and prophet Muhammad. Below are the classical scholary exegesis of the above verse.

Tafsir Ibn Kathir:

This is what Allah did to the Jews who disbelieved in Isa and the Christians who went to the extreme over him. Allah tormented them in this life; they were killed, captured, and lost their wealth and kingdoms. Their torment in the Hereafter is even worse and more severe

Tafsir al-Jalalayn

As for the disbelievers, I will chastise them with a terrible chastisement in this world, through being killed, taken captive and made to pay the jizya, and the Hereafter, in the Fire; they shall haveno helpers, none to protect them from it.

Tafsir Ibn Abbas

(As for those who disbelieve) in Allah and in His messengers Muhammad and Jesus (I shall chastise them with a heavy chastisement in the world) by exposing them to the sword and the capitation tax (jizyah) (and the Hereafter) by throwing them into the Fire; (and they will have no helpers) to save them from Allah's punishment in this world or in the Hereafter.

Problems with Zaid's compilation of Quran

From multiple hadiths of bukhari, we came to know that loss of Quran memorizers prompted Abu Bakr and Umar to assign Zaid to collect the Quran in one book which Muhammad didn't do in his lifetime. Now there are some questions related to the Two witnesses criteria:

• Why was this criteria adopted? Why not 3 witnesses or 4? Who came to the conclusion that 2 witnesses are enough?

• What was expected from these witnesses to testify on isn't clear. Muslim apologist like this argue that, simply to have listened from muhammad wasn't enough. They must had to testify on verses which were written in front of muhammad.

• What about the literary eloquence of Quran? Why eloquence was never a criteria for inclusion or exclusion of a verse for Zaid and his Quran collection team? Somehow it didn't seem a valid criteria to them.

An explanation of Chapter 2 verse 193 in Quran

Read the verse here. You can read different translations and translations in different languages.

Read the word by word translation here.

So basically the verse says

Fight the disbelievers untill there is no more Fitna and Islam established as only religion. But if the disbelievers cease fighting, let there be no hostility towards them, except against the Zalimun.

The verse after reading the translation looks bad enough. But this verse gets even worse when we translate the word "Fitna" and the word "Zalimun"

What does Fitna mean? It can have different meanings.

Read the Wikipedia article about Fitna

Read the definition from authentic islamic website Islamqa.com

Fitna basically means chaos due to disagreement in opinion. The verse could mean that fight them until there is no disagreement against islam.

In this specific verse, fitna is used to mean disbelief in allah, rejecting allah or accepting other gods besides allah. That's what Ibn Kathir said in his Tafsir.

So this verse means allah says, fight the disbelievers until there is no more disbelief in allah.

What does Zalimun mean? Zalimun is plural. Single is Zalim. Who are the zalimun or who is a Zalim?

1. Every idolater is a Zalim (2:92, 7:148, 10:106)
2. Every disbeliever is a Zalim (2:254)
3. Whoever calls himself a god is a Zalim (21:29)
4. Whoever denies any of the verses of Quran is a Zalim (29:49)
5. Whoever invents a lie against allah is a Zalim (3:94, 6:21)
6. Whoever makes false claims is a Zalim (11:31)
7. Is your friend hostile to islam? Then you are also a Zalim (9:23, 60:9)
8. Whoever follows desires rather than Quran and Sunnah is also a Zalim (2:145)
9. Whoever punishes an innocent is a Zalim (12:79)
10. Whoever violates the laws of allah is a Zalim (2:229)
11. And lastly, whoever does not judge by the Quran and sunnah is a Zalim (5:45)

So the last part of the verse: no hostility except against the Zalimun means, except against them who are idol worshippers, pagans, atheists, non-muslims. I mean everyone other than muslims can be a Zalim. Even some muslims can be Zalimun according to Quran.

Interesting to see that in this verse, today's muslims translate Fitna as persecution and Zalimina as oppressors. In this way they make it look like muslims are the victims. But there attempt shows intellectual dishonesty. To know the accurate meaning we must follow what the early scholars honestly said about these verses.

Quran could only be understood correctly in arabic

Of all the efforts to artificially insulate Islam from intellectual critique, this is probably the most transparent. Often the critique of islam get accused of misinterpreting certain verse of Quran. They say Quran can only be understood in arabic. There is no accurate translation of Quran hence one can't criticise islam without knowing classical arabic. Unfortunately, for those Muslims craving reassurance from the more embarrassing passages of the Quran and Sunnah, this cheap tactic of arbitrarily dismissing anything they disagree with still comes at a heavy price, since Islam cannot be protected in this way without sacrificing its claim to being a universal religion.

In the first place, it is fundamentally impossible for anyone to learn a language that cannot be translated into the only one they do know, which means the apologists who insist that “one must learn Arabic” in order to understand the Quran are committing a logical fallacy. Either the Arabic of the Qur’an is translatable (in which case there is no need to learn Arabic) or it is not (in which case it can never be learned by the non-native speaker).

Enter the skeptic. While every language has its nuances, how is that Arabic is the only one with words and phrases that are literally untranslatable? More importantly, why in the world would Allah choose to communicate his one true religion for all men in the only language that cannot be understood by all men – including all Muslims, since most do not speak Arabic?

Even more suspicious is that, this "amazing linguistic discovery" was only recently made – and that it corresponds quite remarkably with the contemporary rejection of Islamic practices that were considered acceptable up until the religion’s recent collision with Western liberalism. In fact, there is an astonishing correlation between the argument that hidden and alternate meanings exist to unflattering Quranic passages (justifying slavery, the inferior status of women, sexual gluttony, holy warfare, wife-beating, and religious discrimination) and the level of embarrassment that modern scholars have about the presence of such verses in the Quran!

No follower of other religions makes this claim about his holy book. It is rare to find a Qur’an that does not include voluminous and highly subjective footnoted commentary deemed necessary to explain away the straightforward interpretation of politically-incorrect passages.

An additional problem for the apologists is that they want to have it both ways. On the one hand they declare that (for some strange reason) the “perfect book” can’t be accurately translated and that Allah’s perfect religion thus cannot be understood by most of humanity without a battery of intercessors and interpreters. Then they turn around and blame the reality of Islamic terrorism on this same “necessary” chain of intermediaries by claiming that the Osama bin Ladens of the world have simply gotten bad clerical advice, causing them to “misunderstand” the true meaning of the Religion of Peace (in the most catastrophic and tragic way imaginable).

Of course, another irony here is that, as a Saudi, the Quran-toting Osama bin Laden is a native Arabic speaker – as are most of the leaders and foot soldiers in his al-Qaeda brotherhood of devout Muslims. In fact, many critics of Islam are Arabic speakers as well.
At this point there is only one avenue of escape open to the beleaguered apologist, which is the weak claim that the Qur’an can only be understood in Classical Arabic, an obscure Quraish dialect which has not been commonly used in over a thousand years and is only known by a few hundred people alive today (generally Wahabbi scholars, who are – ironically enough – accused of taking the Qur’an ‘too literally’).

Although it is hardly plausible that the differences between classical and modern Arabic are such that peace and tolerance can be confused with terrorism, even if this were true, it merely begs the question all the more. Why would such a “perfect book” be virtually impossible for the rest of us to learn – and susceptible to such horrible “misinterpretation” on an on-going basis?

Really, it isn’t hard to see through this childish game, particularly since the rules are applied only to detractors and not to advocates. Apologists never claim that Arabic is a barrier to understanding Islam when it comes to lauding the religion, no matter how less knowledgeable those offering praise are than the critics. Obviously, the real reason for this illogical myth is that, for the first time, the information age is making the full history and texts of the Islamic religion available to a broader audience, and it is highly embarrassing to both Muslim scholars and their faithful flock. Pretending that different meanings exist in Arabic is a desperate way of finding solace and saving face.

slightly modified, taken from here

Quran - The hate filled holy book

Muslims are deaf, dumb and blind, they are like strayed animals...


They are like donkeys, dogs, despised apes...


No, they are the vilest of animals...


Muslims are the worst of beasts.

Do you think these descriptions are shocking? Unacceptable? Respectless? Discriminating?

Do you think this is despicable Ku Klux Klan talk? Hatemongering?

Do you think this is sickening Nazi babble?

Do you think these texts are supremacist, maybe even fascistoid, but in any case deeply offensive?

I truely hope your answer on all of these questions is a sincere 'Yes!'

I truely hope that any compasionate, rational thinking person finds these descriptions totally disgusting, because a whole segment of the human population is being portrayed here as some sort of 'untermensch'.

However, there is one problem...The texts above are almost directly quoted from a so called divine book...'almost' I say, because in this so called divine book these descriptions aren't referring to muslims...in the so called divine book these offensive, respectless words are being used to describe NON-muslims...

You probably would have guessed by now...it's the Quran I'm talking about...the book that is highest praised by our islamic brethren, the book that they consider the Absolute Truth - raised above any human law or opinion.

Our muslim brothers and sisters, who demand that we, non-muslims, respect their religion and their 'Holy' Quran, who get angry when we, non-muslims, criticize their divine teachings of islamic 'love' and 'tolerance'. Our muslim brothers and sisters who talk big about 'insults', 'discrimination' and 'islamophobia'...

Our islamic co-humans who just don't want to understand that it's the Quran, and thus their Islam as religion, that is insulting, discriminating and that shows a staggering phobia...a deeply rooted offensive and supremacist hatred for non-muslims...and it's been going on for the last 1400 years.

The likeness of those who disbelieve is as the likeness of one who shouts to that which hears nothing, save a call and a cry; deaf, dumb, blind -- they do not understand. 2:171

Or thinkest thou that most of them listen or understand? They are only like cattle; nay, they are worse astray in Path. 25:44


The similitude of those who were charged with the (obligations of the) Mosaic Law, but who subsequently failed in those (obligations), is that of a donkey which carries huge tomes (but understands them not). Evil is the similitude of people who falsify the Signs of God: and God guides not people who do wrong. 62:5


If it had been Our will, We should have elevated him with Our signs; but he inclined to the earth, and followed his own vain desires. His similitude is that of a dog: if you attack him, he lolls out his tongue, or if you leave him alone, he (still) lolls out his tongue. That is the similitude of those who reject Our signs; So relate the story; perchance they may reflect. 7:176


And well ye knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath: We said to them: "Be ye apes, despised and rejected." 2:65


When in their insolence they transgressed (all) prohibitions, We said to them: "Be ye apes, despised and rejected." 7:166


For the vilest beasts in God's sight, are the deaf, the dumb, who understand not. 8:22


For the worst of beasts in the sight of God are those who reject Him They will not believe. 8:55


Verily those who believe not, among those who have received the scriptures, and among the idolaters, [shall be cast] into the fire of hell, to remain therein [for ever]. These are the worst of creatures. 98:6

Shall I tell thee of a worse (case) than theirs for retribution with Allah? (Worse is the case of him) whom Allah hath cursed, him on whom His wrath hath fallen and of whose sort Allah hath turned some to apes and swine, and who serveth idols. 5:60

....and the list goes on...

(Non) Muslims are unclean. 9:28


(Non) Muslims are perverse. 9:30


(Non) Muslims are miscreants 24:55


(Non) Muslims are in false pride and schism. 38:2


(Non) Muslims are perverted. 63:4


(Non) Muslims are the greediest of all humankind. 2:96


(Non) Muslims are losers. 2:121

While we contemplate on this issue, please do not forget that millions of copies of this book continue to be published, millions of muslims continue to memorize and preach this book worldwide. If I were to write a book in which it includes all the same passages only slightly changed to address how vile and worst animals these muslims are, how muslims are deaf, dumb and blind, how muslims should be fought, subdued and killed until they cease to be muslim, then surely it would've caused an uproar, an outrage. My book would have been promptly banned in many muslim nations and countless fatwas would have been issued to kill me for insulting muslims and islam!

Yet, with the same hatred present in their "holy" book, with the same disrespect for non-muslim Kafirs... muslims demand I respect their book and allow them to teach this book and inject pure and unadulterated hatred toward non-muslim in the mind of underage children who would grow up thinking that every such diplorable words of this book is true.

How to make a human being

Lets get cooking by Allah

How to make a Human Being

• One cup of earth

• 2 tbsp dry clay

• 3cups nothing

• 1.5 cups of not from nothing

• 1tsp wet earth

• 3tbsp mire

• 100ml water

• 1tbsp dust

• 0.5 dead human

• And magic words "Kun Fayakun"

Source: we are created from earth (Quran 11:61), sometimes from dry clay (Quran 15:26,28,33, 17:61 & 32:7), sometimes from nothing (Quran 19:67), sometimes not from nothing (Quran 52:35), sometimes from wet earth (Quran 23:12), or from mire (Quran 38:71), sometimes from water (Quran 25:54, 21:30 & 24:45), sometimes from dust (Quran 3:59, 30:20 & 35:11) or even sometimes from the dead (Quran 30:19 & 39:6)

An explanation of chapter 8 verse 55

Allah says in chapter 8 verse 55 of the Quran that,

Pickthall: Lo! the worst of beasts in Allah's sight are the ungrateful who will not believe.
Yusuf Ali: For the worst of beasts in the sight of Allah are those who reject Him: They will not believe.
Shakir: Surely the vilest of animals in Allah's sight are those who disbelieve, then they would not believe.

Allah - the god of islam expresses profound hatred toward disbelievers in Quran and this hatred is based on people's freedom of choice i.e. not believing in allah and his signs. Every now and then Allah threatens kafirs with hellfire and shows how much he hates Kafirs (disbelievers).

Let's explain the context of the verse 55 which actually starts from PREVIOUS verse that one has to read to understand the whole context. Read verse 54 to 58here with all the different translations. We can see, verse 54 describes how the Pharaohs disbelieved in the signs of allah and allah punished them.

How did Allah punish the Pharaoh and their people? By destroying them and drowning them into the sea. Why?...because they disbelieved in allah. So allah had to punish them simply because they disbelieved in allah's signs? Well, YES!! Because Allah says in the next verse: INDEED Kafirs (disbelievers) are the worst creatures in the sight of allah as they disbelieved and will never believe in allah.

Read the word by word translation of verse 54, 55 and 56.

Now this next verse 56 where allah says, those with whom you made covenant and they break covenant, they do not fear allah. This "those people" in historical context, is indicating the jewish tribe of Banu Quraiza. According to islamic tradition, Muhammad made a treaty with the tribe but they broke it (really?). So Allah commanded Muhammad to punish them severely. Ibn Kathir in his Tafsir described it as "Striking hard against those who disbelieve and break the covenants".

Some muslims try to argue that this later verse 56 restrict the worst creature label given in verse 55 in an attempt to make Quran look good and reasonable. However this appears to be a manipulation. There is nothing in verse 56 to restrict the previous label. The label is for all disbelievers. Now this verse is talking about those people with whom You (Muhammad) had treaties but break treaties, they do not fear allah. According to muslim apologists' logic, those kafirs who do not break treaties...they fear allah then?
Alladhina(Those who) is a masculine plural relative pronoun which relates to the people with whom Muhammad had treaties, not those who are worst creatures.

This "those who" could also mean that, kafirs always break treaties because they don't fear allah. Overall, only Disbelievers or both the Disbelievers and Treaty breakers are the worst creatures.

There are other verses where Allah again calls disbelievers the worst creatures and vile beasts. In verse 22 of the same chapter allah declares the disbelievers as deaf, dumb people who do not understand and calls them worst of beasts. Ibn Kathir was kind enough to explain the meaning for us. Another verse 6 in chapter 98, once again allah calls the disbelievers worst creatures. Note emphasis on those who disbelieved

Indeed, they who disbelieved among the People of the Scripture and the polytheists will be in the fire of Hell, abiding eternally therein. Those are the worst of creatures.

Allah's prophet Muhammad was equally interested to use the label "worst creature" for various other people.

1. Christians who decorate their church with nice pictures, Muhammad accused them of worshipping grave and called them worst creatures. Sahih Bukhari, book 23, Hadith number 425.
2. Those people who don't understand Quran or take the Quran seriously, they are worst of creatures. Sahih Muslim, Book 5, Hadith 2335.

Read this article written by Abul Kasem on the topic.

Alexander the Great, Dhū al-Qarnayn & the Qur’ān

Alexander the Great, Dhū al-Qarnayn & the Qur’ān

By Klingschor

There appears in the Qur’ān a mysterious figure by the name of Dhū al-Qarnayn, a mighty hero who travelled to both the Eastern and Western extremities of the earth, where the sun rose and fell (respectively). At the former location he encountered peoples who (due to the close proximity of the sun) endured great heat without respite during the daytime, whilst at the latter he found a body of murky water.

Dhū al-Qarnayn proceeded to travel elsewhere until he came across two great barriers, in whose shadow lived a strange race of bestial and subhuman people who begged him for help; beyond the barriers lay the lands of the foul Gog and Magog, an evil and apocalyptic race against whom the bestial peoples sought protection.  In response to their plight, Dhū al-Qarnayn constructed a gigantic bastion of iron and brass to shore up the barriers betwixt his clients and the vicious nations of Gog and Magog, a wall that (according to the Qur’ān) still stands to this day and will only crumble on Judgement Day. When this occurs, the evil hordes of Gog and Magog will be released from their imprisonment behind Dhū al-Qarnayn’s iron wall and scourge the world.[1]

The identity of Dhū al-Qarnayn (literally the ‘Two-Horned One’[2]) has been the source of much speculation throughout history. Although opinions vary, the most common identity posited for Dhū al-Qarnayn by Classical Muslim exegetes of the Qur’ān (such as ‘Abd-Allāh al-Qurtubī, Ismā‘īl ibn Kathīr, Muhammad al-Tabarī and Jalāl al-Suyūtī) was that of Alexander the Great.[3]^{, [4]} The evidence for this conclusion is compelling, and incidentally reveals an interesting plagiarism within the Qur’ān.

The very name Dhū al-Qarnayn (the Two-Horned One) is extremely revealing as to the identity of the so-called character in the Qur’ān, as the title was actually a commonly used epithet for Alexander the Great in Antiquity:

The epithet he [Alexander the Great] is given in the Koran and in Islamic tradition is already known in the Syriac Alexander Legend which itself goes back to Jewish and probably Egyptian tradition. The name is also found in the Greek, Coptic and Ethiopic Alexander tradition.[5]

This title actually originated from the association of Alexander with a horned composite-deity known as Zeus-Ammon,[6]^{, [7]} which led to the Macedonian being depicted with two ram’s horns protruding from his head:

The iconography of Amun would surround Alexander even after his own death: “The god Ammon became increasingly important to Alexander after siwah … [and] after his death the men who knew him well would incorporate the horn of Ammon into the canonical iconography of Alexander”. To support his claims to divinity as the son of Amun (whom the Greeks venerated as an avatar of Zeus), Alexander began to sanction official graphic representations of himself with the ram’s horns of Amun curling through his hair. This image of Alexander fitted with the horns of a ram […] can still be seen on various ancient coins.[8]

Thus it was that Alexander the Great became known as the Two-Horned One, an epithet that was used throughout the ancient world and even appeared pictorially on coinage for many centuries to come.

It isn’t just the name that identifies Dhū al-Qarnayn as Alexander the Great, however – the story of Dhū al-Qarnayn in the Qur’ān finds a great degree of parity with the myths and legends that developed around Alexander the Great in the centuries following his death: According to the Qur’ān, Dhū al-Qarnayn the Two-Horned One travels to the Western and Eastern extremities of the earth to lands ravaged by the heat of the sun, before travelling to a place between two barriers where he constructed a giant bastion of iron to keep at bay the evil tribes of Gog and Magog. This narrative actually predates the Qur’an by several centuries and has its origins in an ancient legend pertaining to Alexander the Great “According to Greek and Latin traditions from the first century CE onward”, who spoke of him “building gates in the Caucasus to keep out invaders”.[9]

The famous first century Roman historian Pliny the Elder noted this peculiar legend, and spoke giant iron gates and a fortress in the Caucasus Mountains, “erected for the purpose of barring the passage of the innumerable tribes”.[10]

In the Middle East, however, the story was far more elaborate and had become interwoven with popular Biblical apocalyptic legends, as was duly noted by the First Century Roman-Jewish historian Flavius Josephus:

The link between the apocalyptic peoples of Gog and Magog on the one hand, and Alexander and the wall he is said to have built on the other, apparently took origin in Jewish Hellenistic circles in Alexandria at the beginning of the Christian era. It is Flavius Josephus (d. around 100) who witnesses at first to the trend. […] It is in his Jewish War, that Josephus links the biblical Gog and Magog with the popular Hellenistic Alexander-tradition. He says that Alexander closed a mountain pass by erecting iron gates south of the Caspian Sea…[11]

Thus it was that in the 1st Century CE, Alexander the Great (or the Two-Horned One, as he was also popularly known) was attributed with having constructed a giant bastion of iron in the Caucasus Mountains of Central Asia to keep at bay the evil hordes of Gog and Magog.

The Hun invasions of the late 4th Century CE that devastated Syria and the Northern-Mesopotamia were reminiscent of the Biblical menace of Gog and Magog, a fact that helped to further develop the tradition surrounding Alexander the Great. He became “a superhuman protector of civilization” and

With God’s help he was to build a barrier that should shut off the apocalyptic nations until the time fixed by God Himself. Only at God’s signal could they get loose and ravage the earth before they would be finally destroyed.[12]

By now, the various legends surrounding Alexander the Great portrayed the Macedonian conqueror as “an almost mythical hero performing numerous deeds which brought him to the farthest ends of the world”[13] and attributed to him the construction of a gigantic iron bastion in the Caucasus Mountains of Central Asia to imprison the evil hordes of Gog and Magog until Judgement Day, when the peoples of Gog and Magog will escape and lay waste to the world.

Nowhere was this more evident than the Alexander Romance, a collection of ahistorical legends penned by an unknown author commonly titled ‘Pseudo-Callisthenes’ that

…seems to have received its literary form in Alexandria at the end of the 3rd century. The text became soon very popular and was rewritten and adapted to the different readers’ cultural or national environment. The Romance was spread in numerous versions and languages to the East and to the West. The oldest testimonies of the Romance are the Latin (4th c.) and Armenian version (5th c.).[14]

It was the Syriac rendition of the Alexander Romance, however, the truly brought together these various Alexander traditions into a single unified narrative:

The Syrian redactor, probably an East Syrian Christian, added a certain number of until then unknown episodes to the text. The episode of Alexander’s building a wall against Gog and Magog, however, is not found in the oldest Greek, Latin, Armenian and Syriac versions of the Romance. Though the Alexander Romance was decisive for the spreading of the new and supernatural image of Alexander the king in East and West, the barrier episode has not its origin in this text. The fusion of the motif of Alexander’s barrier with the Biblical tradition of the apocalyptic peoples of Gog and Magog appears in fact for the first time in the so called Syriac Alexander Legend. This text is a short appendix attached to Syriac manuscripts of the Alexander Romance.[15]

The Syriac Alexander Legend was composed 629-630 CE in the Northern Levant following the Byzantine victory over the Sāssānid Empire, and details how a God-fearing Alexander the Great (the King of the West and the East) travelled to the ends of the earth: at one he finds an inhospitable land girt by foetid water, and at the other (the place where the sun rises) he finds a land where the peoples fear the scathing burn of sunlight. After visiting these places, Alexander travels on and constructs a giant iron bastion in-between two mountain barriers to keep at bay the tribes of Gog and Magog. In the Legend the old epithet of the ‘Two Horned One’ is taken literally, and Alexander is described as possessing a set of horns.[16]^{, [17]}

This legend persisted for more than a millennium in Persia, where the celebrated poet Firdausi included in his masterpiece the Shahnameh a section devoted to the tale of how Alexander the Great “went to the East, saw wonders, and built a barrier against Gog and Magog”.[18]

There is no room for ambiguity on this matter – the story of Dhū al-Qarnayn—the Two-Horned One who travelled to the ends of the earth and found a pool of foetid water at one and people living in fear of the rising sun at the other, before constructing a giant wall of iron between two barriers to keep at bay the evil tribes of Gog and Magog until Judgement Day—is a direct plagiarism from ahistorical pre-Islāmic stories and legends pertaining to Alexander the Great. These legends originate from the 1st Century CE and were widely disseminated throughout the ancient world up til the birth of Islām. Muhammad’s prophetic career (610-632 CE)[19] even coincides with the Syriac Alexander Legend (629-630 CE), although many of the stories it contains had already filtered into the Arabian Peninsula in the years preceding Islām:

Alexander the Great is an important figure in Arabic literature. Incidental mentions of him, either under his own name (al-Iskandar) or as Dhu’l-qarnain, ‘the two-horned one’, appear from the earliest times, even in pre-Islamic poetry…[20]

Two examples of this are the pre-Islāmic poet Maymūn ibn Qays al-A‘shā and Muhammad’s contemporary Hassān ibn Thābit, both of whom composed verses relating to Dhū al-Qarnayn’s travels to the eastern end of the earth and to his construction of a wall to imprison Gog and Magog.[21]

When all of these facts are taken into consideration, it’s little wonder that Classical exegetes of the Qur’ān took Dhū al-Qarnayn to be Alexander the Great:

…the two stories […] associated with Dhu’l-qarnain [in the Qur’ān] are precisely those two associated with Alexander in the Syriac Legend of Alexander, current shortly before the composition of the Qur’an.[22]

In summation, ancient legends pertaining to Gog and Magog (as related in the Bible) and ancient ahistorical stories pertaining to Alexander the Great’s iron barrier in the Caucasus (as noted by Pliny the Elder) became interwoven into a single myth (according to Flavius Josephus): Alexander the Great built a giant barrier of iron in the Caucasus to imprison Gog and Magog. The Hun Invasions in the 4th Century CE inspired the narrative further, wherein it was said that Gog and Magog will be imprisoned behind Alexander’s barrier until Judgement Day. This story was further elaborated in the Alexander Romance (first compiled by Pseudo-Callisthenes in the 3rd  Century CE and further redacted many times in many different languages over the following centuries), and by the 7th Century CE (the time of the formative years of Islām) it attained the following form (as culminated in the Syriac Alexander Legend): Alexander the Great was a God-Fearing Monotheist who travelled to the ends of the earth and encountered foetid water at one and people living in fear of the rising sun at the other; in Central Asia between two mountain-barriers he built a gigantic wall of iron and brass to imprison the evil nations of Gog and Magog that will last until Judgement Day, whereupon Gog and Magog will break free and wreak havoc upon the world.

Furthermore, Alexander the Great was always depicted with ram’s horns in Antiquity and was known throughout the ancient world by the epithet of the ‘Two-Horned One’ – the Syriac Alexander Legend even describes him with literal horns.

This ahistorical narrative of Alexander the Great (well known throughout the ancient Middle East and even the Arabian Peninsula) was subsequently incorporated into the Qur’ān, where Dhū al-Qarnayn (the Two-Horned One) travels to the ends of the earth (encountering a murky body of water and people beset by the rising sun, respectively) before building a giant wall of iron and brass between two barriers to imprison Gog and Magog until Judgement Day.

In conclusion, it seems clear beyond dispute that Muhammad (or perhaps some other later author) draw upon pre-Islāmic legends and appropriated them into Qur’ān.

Bibliography: 
Primary Sources:

Al-Mahallī, Jalāl al-Dīn, & Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūtī, (Translated by Feras Hamza), ‘Tafsir al-Jalalayn’, at http://tinyurl.com/3hruw8c, accessed 27 June 2011.

Budge, Ernest A. W. (ed.), The History of Alexander the Great: Being the Syriac Version of the Pseudo Callisthenes, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1889.

Khalidi, Tarif, The Qur’an: A New Translation, London, UK: Penguin Classics, 2009.

Secondary Sources:

Barletta, Vincent, Death in Babylon: Alexander the Great & Iberian Empire in the Muslim Orient, Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 2010.

Campo, Juan E., Encyclopedia of Islam, New York, NY: Infobase Publishing, 2009.

Donzel, Emeri Van, & Andrea Schmidt, Gog and Magog in Early Syriac and Islamic Sources: Sallam's Quest for Alexander’s Wall, Leiden, Netherlands: E. J. Brill, 2009.

Fildes, Alan & Joann Fletcher, Alexander the Great: Son of the Gods, Los Angeles, CA: Getty Publications, 2002.

Goldsborough, Reid, ‘Alexander the Great Numismatic Portrait’, 2010, at http://tinyurl.com/66g3r7x, accessed 24 June 2011.

Lawrence, Bruce, The Qur’an: A Biography, Crows Nest, AUS: Allen & Unwin, 2006.

Meserve, Margaret, Empires of Islam in Renaissance Historical Thought, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2008.

Panayotakis, Stelios, Maaike Zimmerman & Wytse Keulen, The Ancient Novel and Beyond, Leiden, Netherlands: E. J. Brill, 2003.

Reynolds, Gabriel S. (ed.), The Qur’ān in Its Historical Context, New York, NY: Routledge, 2008.

Wheeler, Brannon M., Prophets in the Qur’an: An Introduction to the Qur’an and Muslim Exegesis, London, UK: Continuum, 2002.

---

[1] Qur’ān 18:83-99, Qur’ān 21:96-97.

[2] Juan E. Campo, Encyclopedia of Islam (New York, NY: Infobase Publishing, 2009), pp.30-31.

[3] Brannon M. Wheeler, Prophets in the Qur’an: An Introduction to the Qur’an and Muslim Exegesis (London, UK: Continuum, 2002), pp.227-237.

[4] Jalāl al-Dīn al-Mahallī & Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūtī (Translated by Feras Hamza), ‘Tafsir al-Jalalayn’, at http://tinyurl.com/3hruw8c, accessed 27 June 2011.

[5] Emeri Van Donzel & Andrea Schmidt, Gog and Magog in Early Syriac and Islamic Sources: Sallam's Quest for Alexander’s Wall (Leiden, Netherlands: E. J. Brill, 2009), p.57.

[6] Reid Goldsborough, ‘Alexander the Great Numismatic Portrait’, 2010, at http://tinyurl.com/66g3r7x, accessed 24 June 2011.

[7] Alan Fildes & Joann Fletcher, Alexander the Great: Son of the Gods (Los Angeles, CA: Getty Publications, 2002), p.58.

[8] Vincent Barletta, Death in Babylon: Alexander the Great & Iberian Empire in the Muslim Orient (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 2010), pp.183-184.

[9] Gabriel S. Reynolds (ed.), The Qur’ān in Its Historical Context (New York, NY: Routledge, 2008), p.186.

[10] Cited in Margaret Meserve, Empires of Islam in Renaissance Historical Thought (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2008), p.252.

[11] Emeri Van Donzel & Andrea Schmidt, Gog and Magog in Early Syriac and Islamic Sources, pp.10-11.

[12] Emeri Van Donzel & Andrea Schmidt, Gog and Magog in Early Syriac and Islamic Sources, p.16.

[13] Emeri Van Donzel & Andrea Schmidt, Gog and Magog in Early Syriac and Islamic Sources, p.16.

[14] Emeri Van Donzel & Andrea Schmidt, Gog and Magog in Early Syriac and Islamic Sources, p.17.

[15] Emeri Van Donzel & Andrea Schmidt, Gog and Magog in Early Syriac and Islamic Sources, p.17.

[16] Emeri Van Donzel & Andrea Schmidt, Gog and Magog in Early Syriac and Islamic Sources, pp.18-19.

[17] Ernest A. W. Budge (ed.), The History of Alexander the Great: Being the Syriac Version of the Pseudo Callisthenes (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1889), p.148.

[18] Ernest A. W. Budge (ed.), The History of Alexander the Great, p.133.

[19] Bruce Lawrence, The Qur’an: A Biography (Crows Nest, AUS: Allen & Unwin, 2006), pp.4-5.

[20] Stelios Panayotakis, Maaike Zimmerman & Wytse Keulen, The Ancient Novel and Beyond (Leiden, Netherlands: E. J. Brill, 2003), p.3.

[21] Stelios Panayotakis, Maaike Zimmerman & Wytse Keulen, The Ancient Novel and Beyond, pp.7-8.

[22] Stelios Panayotakis, Maaike Zimmerman & Wytse Keulen, The Ancient Novel and Beyond, p.8.


See Also: 

Dhu’l Qarnayn and the sun controversy in the Qur’an: New evidence

A comprehensive examination with new evidence and many new arguments concerning the different interpretations of Qur’an 18:86 and 18:90 By Martin Taverille.

Produce a Sura like it

You claim that the evidentiary miracle is present and available, namely, the Koran. You say: "Whoever denies it, let him produce a similar one." Indeed, we shall produce a thousand similar, from the works of rhetoricians, eloquent speakers and valiant poets, which are more appropriately phrased and state the issues more succinctly. They convey the meaning better and their rhymed prose is in better meter.

By God what you say astonishes us! You are talking about a work which recounts ancient myths, and which at the same time is full of contradictions and does not contain any useful information or explanation. Then you say: "Produce something like it"?!

This is how Al-Razi, the brilliant persian polymath and rationalist expressed his utter disbelief towards the Quranic challenge which is proposed in several (52:33-34, 11:13, 2:23, 17:88) verses of the Quran. Allah challenged not only mankind but also the Jinns (ancient mythical creatures of desert arabia) to produce ten chapters or single chapter or 3 verses similar to that of Quran. There are several objections to this supposed challenge readily pop up in my mind. These are the following.

Objection 1: The Quran contains many grammatical, logical and scientific errors in it. It also has glaring contradictions. Now muslims will always deny these facts. Thousands of arguments, counter-arguments, apologetics and counter-apologetics, refutation and counter-refutation, articles and you tube videos have been produced and re-produced which continues to this day and will most likely continue in future. These debates and discussions proves there are people who do not consider Quran a miracle in any sense. I don't think Quran is a literary masterpiece. I don't think it is a miracle.I don't think it is poetic or divine and see no reason to think it is inimitable.

My point is, how many people have to consider something exceptional in order to take it as exceptional? How many muslims need to recognize Quran a literary miracle in order to take Quran's claims as legit? To me, Quran is just another ancient book of mythical stories and guidelines reflecting 7th century moral values written by illiterate, superstitious tribal goat herders. I don't consider it a divine literary masterpiece from a supernatural deity like the millions of muslims do. therefore I don't have to take the claims seriously...yet I'm here writing this article precisely because so many muslims insist on it. it's like, "if you can't prove it is wrong then it is right"!!

Objection 2: Depending upon the different opinions of many muslims, the exact meaning of "surah like it" varies greatly. Some say it has to be eloquent and stylish like Quran, some say the verses should match the exact grammatical rules of Quran, some say verses must have to be meaningful, others say verses should not sound like that of soothsayers or pre-islamic poetry etc. There are many other such conditions muslims insist on in order to make the challenge as hard as possible.

First of all the challenge should not contain conditions like beauty, eloquence, poetic etc. because these factors vary in different observers. they are subjective. I can claim that Leonardo da-Vinci's Monalisa is poetic, beautiful and inimitable. None can produce a similarly beautiful artwork ever. Is my claim a valid challenge if I appeal to subjective emotion? Or does that make Monalisa a divine art if nobody can produce an artwork as beautiful and magnificent as Monalisa? The same could be said about van Beethoven’s extraordinary Ninth Symphony, or Ennio Morricone’s heartrending Gabriel’s Oboe. The point is, beauty and such things are totally subjective in nature. What one person finds beautiful and poetic, other person may reject that as utter gibberish. There's no way to meet these conditions. Besides who's gonna be the judge, what would be his qualities and what would be his religion? There's a helluva lot objections for which no one knows the answers.

Objection 3: Despite all of that, muslims made their mind from the begining that there will be no surahs like Quran. Immediately after the proposed challenge allah says the challenge can never be met.

But if you do not - and you will never be able to - then fear the Fire, whose fuel is men and stones, prepared for the disbelievers.

It's worth noting that allah in addition to muslims, have decided that there will be no sura like it! Since muslims have already believed in Quran, no muslim will ever consider any human made sura similar or better than Quran. This is the main reason behind declaring simulated surahs ineligible. Not because of poetry or grammar, but rather because it is considered a disbelief! If any muslim recognizes Quran's fallibility, then immediately he becomes an apostate. And we all know how apostates are dealt with in islam. So I think that this is the main (sublime but intense fear, bias and other emotional) factor that prohibits a muslim from using his better judgement. Allah already claims none will be able to meet the challenge. The challenge is invalid if you refuse to even admit the chance of defeat and declare yourself infallible.

Objection 4: There is a logical fallacy in this challenge. The Quran doesn't specifically say who will be the judge to determine whether the challenge has been met of not. If I produce a piece of literature and claim it supercedes quran's linguistics then there must have to be some person who will judge both literature and declare a verdict. A person who judged my literature AND THE QURAN fully... Then and only then he can give his decision. A person who judged the Quran fully means there is no knowledge given in the Quran that is beyond his understanding capacity. He has understood the Quran 100%. For if he is unable to understand the Quran then he only has partial knowledge and is by default unqualified to be a judge of this challenge.

It is said that ordinary human can not grasp the full knowledge of the Quran because it came from god. Only god has the full knowledge of Quran. The person who says he can be a judge of this challenge has fully understood Quran and nothing in the Quran is beyond his understanding. He is absolutely sure about his knowledge of Quran. Therefore the person who claims to be able to judge the Quran 100% implicitly acknowledging it didn't came from god. Only god can be the judge of this challenge. But the aim of the challenge is to prove the quran is divine which ultimately proves the existence of god. Therefore the challenge is invalid. *Note: to understand the Quran fully means a person is absolutely certain what allah says in the Quran. In his mind, there is not a slightest amount of confusion and no information given in the Quran is beyond his understanding.

Objection 5: We can logically construct a refutation based on this challenge of Quran. Read Irrefutable refutation of islam.

Objection 6: A similar situation can be found in case of Hinduism. The Vedas are a collection of 4 vedic scriptures. It is written in Sanskrit language. Just like the muslims think Quran is divine, Hindus also think Veda is divine in origin, directly revealed and heard (it can be compared to the situation where muhammad heard from gabriel) Just like Quran is the first work of any significant length written in the classical arabic language, Vedas are a large body of texts in oldest sanskrit language. Sanskrit is thought to be the mother of all languages. Now question is: Can muslims bring three verses written in oldest Sanskrit which exceeds the Veda? If they can't then does it prove Veda's divinity? Then they should also start following Vedas.

The concept is called Apaurusheyatva. Basically it says that the phonemes of Vedas are eternal and can not be created or destroyed by anyone. Panini confirmed this in his book. So there is a similarity here. Although I think Vedas don't explicitly make the claim like Quran but the concept is there.

Objection 7: Even if no human can emulate Quran, that does not necessarily make its origin divine. Attributing the Quran to an omnipotent god, & ignoring the other more plausible alternatives (Aliens, Satan, Jinn, Time-Travellers, lingering Atlantean Knowledge, etc) is illogical.

The Guideline: There needs to be a guideline in order to complete this challenge. The surah like it challenge can be divided into three phases, as discussed below.

Phase 1: Creating Surahs [By Kafirs]

Mission: Kafirs assemble to write 1 surah with the same quality and rhythm of the quran.

Odds: - Kafirs are afraid of getting killed by Muslims, so they won’t even think about it

- Kafirs are not capable of writing a single surah because of its miraculous nature, and will back off from the challenge

- Kafirs are not sure whether they can write a surah or not, so they won’t take the risk, and will back off from the challenge

- Kafirs will successfully write 1 surah to meet up with the challenge

Phase 2: Transmission [By Kafirs]

Mission: Kafirs, after writing a surah, will give it to Muslims for evaluation purposes.

Odds: - Kafirs are afraid of getting killed by Muslims, so they won’t advertise their surah

- Kafirs will not give Muslims the surah because the fear of failure and embarrassment

- Kafirs will try to publish the surahs, but some Muslim cowards will persist on obstructing that action (e.g. AOL protestors)

- Kafirs, somehow, will be successful in giving Muslims the surahs for evaluation.

Phase 3: Evaluating Surahs [By Muslims]

Mission: Muslims will assemble to evaluate the surah, to decide whether the challenge is met or not.

Odds: - Muslims will give logical proof that the challenge is not met

- Muslims will be honest and admit that the challenge met

- Muslims will act blind, and will pretend that there is no challenge at all (e.g. most Islamic Institutions)

- Muslims will be very illogical, and will respond by stupid answers (e.g. “Allah said no one can do it!”)

- Muslims, who are terrified from the challenge, will back off by persisting to stay in their imaginary status quo that Islam is “one up,” which is not substantiated by any kind of evidence, thus null.

Now there are several method in which this challenge could be met.

Refutation 1: I could say that, I have met the challenge of Quran of making the similar verse, that is, "Aleef. Jeem. Meem" which is similar to "Alef. Lam. Mem". A muslim might ask what is the meaning of "Alef, Jeem, Mem"? I would answer that the meaning of "Aleef. Lam. Meem" is only known to Allah (the author of the quran) and similarly the meaning of "Alef. Jeem. Mem" is only known to the Author of that verse.

Refutation 2: The following logical refutation was written by Muhammed Chalhoub.
For those muslims who want to argue that none other than Allah is capable of producing something like the Qur'an , I have bad news : the Qur'an itself admits that this supposedly impossible feat has already long been accomplished by certain beings other than Allah , and i can prove it.

In what follows , i will use a method known as proof by contradiction , i.e. i will start out by assuming a few central and essential beliefs in Islam to be true . Then , by analyzing particular Qur'anic verses , i will derive certain implications for each of these assumptions and show them to be contradictory with the rest of the assumptions.

In other words , for those who didn't understand : I will show that the following two central beliefs of Islam are incompatible with each other :

Premise 1 - The Qur'an is perfect and inimitable. Nobody other than Allah, whether human or jinn is capable of producing the equivalent of a surah of the Qur'an (and a surah according to most if not all Islamic websites is equal to at least 3 verses, Fathima Faisal has earlier said that a surah should be equal to 10 words at least). Plus, this perfection and inimitability is maintained all throughout the book.

Premise 2 - The Qur'an is wholly true, i.e. there is no single error/falsehood/lie found in the Qur'an.

Now, take a look at Chapter 72 , Surat Al-Jinn , and read (the following verses are taken from the Pickthall translation):

072.001 Say (O Muhammad): It is revealed unto me that a company of the Jinn gave ear, and they said: Lo! we have heard a marvellous Qur'an,

072.002 Which guideth unto righteousness, so we believe in it and we ascribe no partner unto our Lord.

072.003 And (we believe) that He - exalted be the glory of our Lord! - hath taken neither wife nor son.
continue to read all the way up to verse 20 .

There are a few things to note here:

- In the first 19 verses of the surah , it is clear that the words aren't Allah's words. The Qur'an here is clearly quoting what the jinn supposedly said.

- From the use of first-person narrative mode in those verses, we deduce that the Qur'an isn't simply "paraphrasing" what the jinn supposedly said . Instead , it is quoting their speech as it is, word for word.

- Those verses certainly amount to a surah ( and even more).

So, if we assume that #2 earlier ( that the Qur'an is wholly true) is correct, then it is a fact that at some point of time in the past, the jinn said precisely those words. But since those exact words were included in the Qur'an among Allah's words, that can only imply that they are of the same style and eloquence as Allah's words, and therefore #1 is false and the Qur'an is NOT inimitable since - according it - the jinn had managed to produce something similar.

The only way a muslim could find out of this, and the only way to maintain his/her book's inimitability is to claim that those words have never actually been said by the jinn ( or anyone else), and that the Qur'an perhaps said so simply for rhetorical purposes. However, this claim would directly contradict assumption # 2 since the Qur'an in that case would not be wholly true.

Refutation 3: Listen to this Video.

Sura al-Dajaj سورة الدجاج

Another one: These are three arabic verses produced by Muadit Muanqady.

إذا جاء خسارة الله و الهزيمة * و رأيت الناس يخرجون من دين الله أفواجا * فاستمتع بنعمة العقل إن الله كان زهوقا

Here are some other verses produced by Native Arabic speakers: 2 Surahs ( Chapter ) whose verses have the same rhyming and style as that of the Qur'an.

The first one is called Surat Al-La Deeniyon ( i.e. "The Surah of The Non-Religious"). It starts out by explaining who the non-religious are , then carries on by pointing out scientific and logical errors in the Qur'an, and ending with a message for everyone to adhere to humanistic rather than religious principles.

The second one is Surat Al ' ilm (The Surah of Science) . It starts out by explaining how the islamic world declined since they started relying on revelation rather than reason. And then carries on until the end by debunking claims of scientific miracles and pointing out scientific errors in the Qur'an just like the first one, and all this with a style that matches that of the Qur'an.

Here is an English one produced by Saif Rahman which in my opinion, sounds very poetic and eloquent. It's called Surat al ByManat Noon.
Alif .X.Z.

1. Verily, this verse is unlike any other
2. A clear prose for those willing to believe.
3. And have we not told you the story of Lyar?
4. Verily, he was wise and Kiddermaan and Bullmaan as well.
5. O People! Tell your women to stay in the homes
6. For verily, it is better for them, if only they knew.
7. And that they should not create undue attention
8. with petty banter and laughter.
9. And what is like the stars? Shall I strike you a similitude?
10. For the sun is a signs of my mercy and greatness,
11. as it radiates in servitude
12. For you shall have fear of the lord and remember well
13. his benevolence. For verily, S’alah is all knowing, and all seeing.
14. And those of you who fast and submit to the way of the Lord,
15. verily, they shall eat grapes on reclining chairs forever and ever.
16. But those whose brains S’alah hath rewired,
17. verily, their souls shall be immersed in molten lead and shall
18. drink potassium permanganate as an everlasting torment, though they cry
19. 'Our lord! We would have believed if you had shown us evidence!'
20. But verily, I did show them but it's too late for them now.
21. Lo, did I not present them with this passage which is clear?

(Saifhall translation)

Refutation 4: In this article, the "Islamic Awareness" team attempts to defend the Qurânic challenge - that none can produce "a sûrah like it". The article begins with an informative discussion of Arabic poetry, and then tells us:

So, the challenge, as Abdur Rahîm Green mentions, is to produce in Arabic, three lines, that do not fall into one of these sixteen al-Bihar, that is not rhyming prose, nor like the speech of soothsayers [Emphasis is ours], and not normal speech, that it should contain at least a comprehensible meaning and rhetoric, i.e. not gobbledygook. Indeed,

The Quran is not verse, but it is rhythmic. The rhythm of some verses resemble the regularity of saj, and both are rhymed, while some verses have a similarity to Rajaz in its vigour and rapidity. But it was recognized by Quraysh critics to belong to neither one nor the other category.

Quotes provided by the "Islamic Awareness" team must also be placed in the context in which they were written. In this case, Beeston, Johnstone, Serjeant and Smith were quoting Mubarak's Nathr. The authors agree that the Qur'an is in a literary category of its own. However, on pages 196-197, they tell us:

The Qur'an is written throughout in rhyming prose (saj'), and appears therefore, to a greater or lesser extent, artistically constructed and strongly rhetorical in comparison with ordinary prose. The individual parts of a sentence, the sentence or combination of sentences which end with a rhyme and are called verses (ayah, plural ayat) follow the rhyme scheme a-a, b-b, c-c. The same rhyme is repeated not only once but as often as the author pleases, e.g. a-a-a, b-b, c-c-c-c (surah ci). Short surahs sometimes have only one rhyme. Ideally, as in the earliest surahs, the rhymes follow in rapid succession at fairly equal intervals; this also seems to have been the case with the rhymes of the ancient Arabic soothsayers. (Presumably the Prophet in fact adopted the alternation of short rhyme sequences from the practice of these soothsayers ...). In the surahs from the latter years of Muhammad's career the verses lengthen increasingly, and the rhymes no longer have the effect of rhetorically enlivening elements, but sound monotonous and often forced, as though they have been added later.

On page 198, we are told:

A large number of early pronouncements in the Qur'an are introduced by strange oaths, or rather asseverations, a stylistic device which Muhammad in all probability copied from the old Arabic soothsayers.

What Do The Orientalists Say About The Inimitability Of The Qur'ân?

The "Islamic Awareness" team provides us with several quotes from H.A.R. Gibb which cast a favorable light on the style of the Qur'an. They establish his credibility by stating:

The famous Arabist from University of Oxford, Hamilton Gibb was open upon about the style of the Qur'ân.
H.A.R. Gibb indeed admired the literary merits of the Qur'an :

Though to be sure, the question of literary merit is one not to be judged on a priori grounds but in relation to the genius of the Arabic language; and no man in fifteen hundred years has ever played on that deep-toned instrument with such power, such boldness, and such range of emotional effect as Mohammed did. (Mohammedanism; an historical survey, London, New York, Oxford University Press, 1953, p. 37)

However, Gibb was indeed "open" about the style when he said, on the previous page (36) :

In the earliest period of his preaching Mohammed's utterances were delivered in a sinewy oracular style cast into short rhymed phrases, often obscure and sometimes preceded by one or more formal oaths. This style is admittedly that of the ancient kahins or Arabian oracle-mongers, and it is not surprising that Mohammed's opponents should have charged him with being just another such kahin. For this and other reasons his style gradually loosened out into a simpler but still rhetorical prose; and as social denunciations and eschatological visions passed into historical narrative, and that in turn at Medina into legislation and topical addresses, little was left of its original stylistic features but a loose rhyme or assonance marking the end of each verse, now anything from ten to sixty words long.

see Pro and Contra arguments and a related thread.


In the book The Art of Reciting the Qur'an by Kristina Nelson who is a trained arabist and musicologist, it is said that some of the verses of Quran indeed follow certain Bihars.

Refutation 5: Is the Qur’ān Inimitable? See the video from Klingschore or read the article here which clearly shows with references that heterodox Arabic materials were considered by Muhammad’s family, companions and even the greatest reciters and memorizers of the Quran to be part of the true revelation, but according to orthodox Islāmic tradition, these were fabricated chapters and verses.

Refutation 6:

• You most probably know the website Sura like it where it contains several surahs imitating Quran.
• Check out the FSM Quran written by Muddy Abbas where he has provided far more scientifically accurate information than Muhammad's Quran.
• And The True Furqan.