Talk:Challenge of the Quran

Has any body made qurans challenge? How to meet and make the challenge false? Amitanshu123 (talk) 16:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

There's no way of knowing: if somebody had ever produced an imitation of a Quranic Surah, that was perfect in its mimesis, perfect in linguistic, stylistic and poetic reproduction, it might actually have succeeded in duping a Quranic scholar; indeed, perhaps all of them —Who knows how many "Challenge Surahs" may have become inadvertently included within the number of its chapters? Nuttyskin (talk) 04:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

This article substantially reduplicates the article on I'jaz:

In five different verses, opponents are challenged to produce something like the Qur'an. Nuttyskin (talk) 04:21, 31 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Good point. I decided to WP:BOLDly redirect (nothing worth merging really). --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:21, 7 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Dragoon17:, the mass materials of the article was removed by you, just by nominating to NPOV problem. What kind of NPOV issues has been seen in the article? due or undue wights? balancing? which one? Also, you removed the picture that has any copyright problem and it is related to the topic! Please explain problems and let me or other users solve them actually not by deleting material. Saff V. (talk) 13:39, 25 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Saff V.: I apologize, but I figured that an article with sentences like "History has witnessed that Quran is the only unaltered book since its revealition and none has been so far able to produce a book similar to it" and "Allah revealed the Quran of miraculous exposition to Prophet Mohammad" had obvious NPOV issues and I didn't need to explain. 😅 Sorry, I will post on the Talk page next time. As for the long list of ayat containing challenges, in addition to a long list paraphrasing those same ayat, I found it repetitive and needless and easily summarized by just saying "challenge to produce one or more chapters" etc. But I will put it back in and combine them together perhaps. While I am not sure what the image adds, I don't really care if it's there or not and I will put it back in if you would like. Unfortunately the link to "Sarrafah theory" is dead and I cannot find any English-language replacements but I'll stick it in there too. Hope that is good. Dragoon17 (talk) 17:13, 25 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Oh, sorry for the double post, but I just wanted to add that I left off the etymology section. The word just means "challenge", literally, and is used in secular contexts as well. So the first sentence sums it up fine imo. Dragoon17 (talk) 17:26, 25 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

There is also a website [sura like it] that also try to meet the challenge. We should include it in the article.סוסמעופף (talk) 15:55, 25 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

It is not considered as RS.Saff V. (talk) 06:08, 26 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

AWriter2020 and I have had a discussion, and it seems that we can't find common ground. AWriter2020 wants to remove a quote by Al-Ma'arri. I had given an academic source for this quote (https://archive.org/details/AbAlAlAlMaarrTheEpistleOfForgivenessVolumeOneAVisionOfHeavenAndHell/page/n19/mode/1up), and can also provide other sources for it, if necessary. For some reason, which AWriter 2020 can probably better explain than me, these sources are illegitimate and inaccurate.

Yuyuhunter (talk) 10:53, 12 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

AWriter2020 continues to refuse to use the talk page.

Yuyuhunter (talk) 17:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I restored the removed paragraph. The source clearly deducts that Al-Marris intent was to imitate the Quran. The reason brought forth to remove it was because either the author "hates Marri" (self explanatory why this is not even an arguement) or because "the source does not quote the Arabic original". If the authro indeed misquotes the original source, when it would be a good reason to remove this paragraph and regard the provided source as invalid, but as long this did not happened and just vague accusations about "he made a mistake and this is not what he sayed in the original", albeit the statement in the source does not even depend on a quote, the reasons for removal lack any reasonable basis. Maybe the user will follow Wikipedia Guidlines WP:RCD and uses the talkpage instead of insisting on his own position and even indirecltly threatening them (quoting the User: "Do not return that again." Honestly, who do you think you are, you dare to say what others have to do?)--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 13:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

There is more than one problem with this Al-Ma'arri quote:

• The First Problem is, the English reference of the quote does not provide a reference to the Arabic original reference. In the English reference page 37 they wrote the following about the original reference of the quote: "There are several versions of this anecdote, see, e.g., Ibn al-Adlm, Bughyat al-talab, pp. 879-80." This is an ambiguous reference it's just a page number without mention the volume number, "Bughyat al-talab" is a book consists of 40 parts and 10 volumes, so these pages 879-80 in which volume this what is not clear, so the English reference is unreliable.
• The Second problem, This quote that is attributed to Al-Ma'arri is not found in any one of his books, also al-Ma’arri’s student rejected the validity of attributing this quote to Al-Ma'arri, as in the link below:

the comment of Ibn Sinan al-Khafaji the student of Al-Ma'arri: https://al-maktaba.org/book/11544/284

also

in the original Arabic version of the book itself (Al-Fuṣūl wa al-ghāyāt ), they wrote in the introduction what confirms the falsity of attributing this quote to Al-Ma'arri, read this in the orginal version is in the below link:

https://archive.org/details/1744pdf_201912/page/n7/mode/2up

AWriter2020 (talk) 13:07, 18 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

this page about the "challenge of quran" is seriously biased and should be critically edited by others than Muslim apologetics. there is a significant lack of objective description of the challenge and it's critics. R-plant (talk) 08:11, 26 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. The article is essentially Muslim propaganda. I have edited some of the worst offenses out, but more work is needed. --ThaddeusB (talk)