proving the divine origin of the Quran to non- beleivers

[Nura]

Salam

Can anyone tell me how to best provide a person with proofs that the Quran is the word of Allah? As in proving to someone who does not believe that the Quran is divine? Generally, during discussions I ask hadith believers to provide proof from the Quran for proving the authority of ahaith as a religious  source. I do this because I believe that its not right and not rational to use hadith to justify authority of Ahadith. So, can anyone help me prove the divinity of the Quran without using the Quran? And also prove divinity using the Quran as well? I still cant provide non belivers with convincing proofs of the divinity of the Quran

Thanks

[Shahmatt]

People are hard to change in their views, and general Muslim behavior does not really help. After reading the book "How to make friends and influence people" by Dale Carnegie I realize that it is impossible to change any person unless that person wants that change. I guess therefore our approach as believers should be to identify individuals who want truth. A person who loves their non-believer lifestyle as it is would in all likelihood be a very hard effort, though I will not go so far as to say that we should not try.

From my limited understanding, the Quran asks us to ponder over its message and perceive the truth of what it says. It is the truth of the Quran that is ultimately what should be used to convince a non-believer into believing in it.

My personal approach would be to first bring up that feature of our souls where we are able to perceive what is good and what is bad in everything. I argue that most of humanity have this feature in common, wherever they are from, and whatever the background, and the Quran states this as fact.

I would continue by saying that God is fair and just, and we all will be judged on our actions whatever religion we outwardly proclaim. This is why there is no compulsion in religion according to the Quran.

Next I would say that the Quran describes humanity as it is, that it is a place of toil and struggle. Whatever our situation, be it wealthy, good health etc., we are all struggling. The Quran says is a relief from this life and a passage to a life free of struggle. This should give motivation to those who want answers to investigate the Quran by themselves and learn it for themselves. A reference to this website will of course help.

[Ismail]

Salaam.

Good reply, Shahmatt.

Moreover, there is no compulsion in religion because true guidance has been made clearly evident, and quite manifest, and distinguished from error. (see 2:256)

In order to make someone accept something unreasonable, compulsion may be necessary.

For a novice, first, it is the stunning universal appeal of the Majestic Opening Chapter.

Then the three verses 6:151, 6:152, 6:153, containing the The Ten Commandments - the Universal Core Values - may help in order to introduce people to Islam. At the end of each of these three verses, God appeals to reason.

Regards,
A. Ismail Sait.

[Saba]

Salaam everyone.

I guess different people come to the realisation that the Qur'an is Allah's words in different ways. I liked brother Joseph's 'fingerprints of authenticity' posts a lot which made him think of the Qur'an's divine origins. I share it here for everyone too ... I find it really good. (Hope br. Joseph doesn't mind me sharing  )

FINGERPRINTS OF AUTHENTICITY

I share some sentiments which once upon a time tore at the mind of an ardent student and critic of the Quran. After a consistent and prolonged assault to his faculties, he finally became convinced that God had indeed spoken...

Below are but a few examples of an immense ocean of scattered thoughts.

Verse 6:35
-------------
Were these really the words of a false Prophet who attempted to rebuke himself in front of an existing hostile and critical audience by calling himself 'jahil', or were these the words of a higher authority admonishing him?

006:035
"And if their aversion is grievous to you, then, if you can, seek a way down into the earth or a ladder to the sky so that you may bring to them a sign (to convince them all)! If God willed, He could have brought them all together to the guidance. THEREFORE BE NOT OF THE IGNORANT / FOOLISH (JAHIL)."

Jahil - ignorant / foolish / silly

Question - 'Fingerprints' of authenticity or a false scripture?

Verse 93:7
-------------
An admission of being astray / in error or a case of merely being 'lost' as softened by translations?

093:007
"And He found you erring / in error / astray (Arabic: dall), so He guided"

Please note how the same Arabic word (dall) is used in Surah Fateha verse 7 as read by potentially billions of Muslims every day. They know very well its meaning in that verse yet oft fail to apply its meaning to verse 93:7. If faithful followers have attempted to 'lighten' the implication of the word, why would a false messenger make use of such strong language against himself in the tacit hope to appeal to an audience that was once critical of him? Or was this once again, a manifestation of truth by a higher authority?

Question - 'Fingerprints' of authenticity or a false scripture?

Verse 42:52
--------------
An admission – Whilst many later historians recount events which surround the prophet in hagiography before and during his ministry, the Quran seems to present quite a different narrative. Given the disparity of the sources with the Quran and what appears to be the inclination of the human mind to show themselves in the most positive light, would a false prophet willingly incline to admit that he never had real faith?

042:052 (part)
"And thus did We reveal to you an inspired book by Our command. You did not know what the Book was, NOR THE FAITH (Arabic: la imaanu)..."

Was this a dangerous attempt by a false Prophet at reverse psychology or a manifestation of truth by the presence of a higher authority?

Question - 'Fingerprints' of authenticity or a false scripture?

Verse 12:3
-------------
Would a false prophet intent on writing a false scripture expose their futility of yore in such a manner so publicly so as to have it preserved in posterity?

012.003
We narrate to you (Muhammad) the best of narratives in that We have inspired in you this Qur'an, although aforetime you were SURELY AMONG THE HEEDLESS (Ghafil)”

Question - 'Fingerprints' of authenticity or a false scripture?

Verse 66:1
-------------
Would a false Prophet expose their vulnerability in such a manner of public rebuke? Or is this once again, a manifestation of truth by the presence of a higher authority?

066.001
“O Prophet! Why do you prohibit / make unlawful / ban that which God has made lawful for you, seeking to please your wives? And God is Forgiving, Merciful.”

Verse 5:17
--------------

Some of those that remain committed in their pursuits to map and study the heavens know instinctively that a potential Creator of such an immense Universe must exhibit unfathomable prowess, total authority and need not be dependant on a human form or of human needs. If He indeed has spoken, His words must carry sentiments that are NOT 'earth-centric.'

One may not be able to express all that God can be, but one can certainly express what God cannot be. A scripture which humanises God to make him dependant cannot be authentic.

005.017
“Certainly they disbelieved who said “Indeed, God, He is the Messiah, son of Mary. Say “Then who has power against God in anything if He intends to DESTROY (yuh’lika) the MESSIAH son of Mary, and HIS MOTHER and WHOEVER is in the EARTH?” And God's is the kingdom / dominion of the HEAVENS AND THE EARTH and what is between them; He creates what He pleases; and God has POWER over ALL THINGS”

Question - 'Fingerprints' of authenticity or a false scripture?

It is in the multifaceted arguments that are posited by the Quran's narratives in the multitude of layers of wisdom that shines through its core teachings that one slowly comes to the ultimate realisation that God has in fact spoken.

From the very few, isolated examples you read above, such sentiments would only ‘likely’ to originate from a mind of a once critic.

It is not the kind of sentiment that would ‘likely’ emanate from the mind of some traditionalists who accept their religion blindly and venerate the Prophet to such a degree, that they fail to see that in what verses they ‘soften’ and ‘hide’, it is where authenticity of the scripture is oft found.

It is in what is hidden, that some of us find God.

Ya’Allah I bear witness that you have indeed spoken to your servants by the Quran. On the Day my Lord, please count me as one of those who testify to this truth.

https://www.facebook.com/joseph.a.islam/posts/216314685172333

FINGERPRINTS OF AUTHENTICITY (FOLLOW-UP)

Original post:

http://www.facebook.com/joseph.a.islam/posts/216314685172333

Dear all,

Peace

Thanks for your thoughts on this and in private. Yes, to answer the question clearly, the critic was me and after much deliberation over the course of my studies / life, I was truly defeated by the Quran's consistent assault on my faculties.

I have longed to write a book by the same name of the post alluding to numerous verses and argumentations that finally convinced me in total submission. Such a feat may transpire if God wills and if He gives me enough time on Earth. I chose only to part with a few examples from a plethora of scattered thoughts. (Hence the thought of writing a book which depicted my journey).

There were numerous reasons, but certainly in the depiction of the prophet's vulnerability as portrayed by the Quran and in stark contrast to the venerated portrayal of the Prophet by the hands of men that I found snippets of authenticity of the Quran's Divine origins.

After all, would a false Prophet writing a false scripture really be so inclined to pass on to posterity his doubts (7:2; 32:23, 10:94-95; 16:43; 21:7) to which God responds with consolatory verses and words of solace? I would often find myself asking, what kind of ancient document / scripture is this and what is in the mind of this man?

As noted by a Western Islamic scholar:

"There are several passages in which the Prophet receives words of solace. These include 52.29; 68.2-7 and 48-50; 70.5-7; 79.42-46; 88:21-26; 93.3-8; 94.1-6; and 108.1 and 3.

They comprise reassurances that hurtful statement made by opponents are untrue (52.29; 68:2 and 4; 93.3, 108.3), promises (68.3; 93.4-5; 94.5-6), reminders of God's favours (93.6-8; 94.1-4; 108.1), assurances that his sole responsibility is to deliver the message (79.42-46; 88.21-26), and exhortations to be patient (68.48-50; 70.5-7) and watch how God deals with unbelievers (68.5-7; 96.'8')." [1]

It is a difficult proposition to accept that such dialogues as these would be captured by a false Prophet writing a false scripture intent on convincing a hostile crowd of his Prophethood.

The following verse still to this day, many moons later brings shivers to my spine and resonates deeply. I could finally relate.

010.094 (part) and 95
“... So do not be among the DOUBTERS and do not be of those who reject the signs / verses of God, THEN YOU WILL BE AMONG THE LOSERS"

This was said to Prophet Muhammad.

As I asked then, as I ask today, is this really the kind of narrative a false Prophet inventing scripture would eagerly want to preserve for posterity or is this a dialogue by a higher authority who in His wisdom knew that such arguments would appeal to ardent critics and sinful souls such as me?

As I have said before, I do not care much if I found this Book at the bottom of the sea. It is in the multifaceted arguments and oceans of multi-layered wisdom that one becomes convinced of its Divine origins, not its 'acclaimed' preservation by the faithful.

I know of no better deed or purpose to life than to implement the Quran’s guidance and in some small way, pass on its message of truth. May God help me if it is His will.

REFERENCE

[1] ROBINSON, N, Discovering the Quran, A Contemporary Approach to a Veiled Text, Second Edition, SCM Press, Part Three: Morphology, Structure and Coherence, 6: The Formal Elements of the ‘Early Meccan’ Surahs, 6.10 Messenger sections, Page 121

https://www.facebook.com/joseph.a.islam/posts/216314685172333

 

[Joseph Islam]

Thank you dear sister Saba for sharing 

[Ismail]

Salaam, brother Joseph Islam,and all members.

(I)   Since Al Qur’an is basically meant to guide mankind away from the torments of Hell, and towards everlasting bliss in Heaven, the error that drives man to a life of inequity and depravity leading him to the everlasting torments of Hell is called Dalaal. This word and other derivatives of its root: daud – laam – laam (DLL) are used in Al Qur’an overwhelmingly with respect to such an error. (example: 1:7 – the last word in the first Chapter.)

But in Arabic the same root is made use of to indicate any kind of error. Al Quran is witness to this:

For example, in 2:282, the root is used for an (unintentional?) error by a female witness.

In 20:52, it is used to deny any error on the part of God in the matter of knowledge of history.

In 68:26, it is used regarding a group of brothers, who, finding their garden unrecognizable (due to providential overnight devastation), exclaim that perhaps somehow they might have strayed from the right way to their own garden!

Going astray, away from the straight path (al sirath al musthaqeem) is one thing. Losing yourself in the search for Truth is altogether a different thing. We can very well understand the intense desire and eagerness to arrive at the Truth. At such a juncture, the Merciful God leads him to the Truth. (93:7). 

(II)   Being ignorant of Al Kithaab and Al Eemaan as in 42:52, does not mean ordinary ignorance. It means lack of in depth knowledge acquired through the ingenious application of the mind. After all, the Jews and Christians were conspicuous along with all their attributes, in the then Arab society. As such everyone would know something or the other regarding the Book, and also regarding Faith. The root word translated usually as knowledge here is not ‘ain – lam – meem. Instead, it is daal – ra – ya. It indicates in depth knowledge acquired through the ingenious application of the mind.

Therefore the enormous gravity of 5:5 is not present in 42:52. (Read on.)

To elaborate:

In 5:5, it is about rejecting Faith. That those who reject faith – their works will become null and void.

Rejecting Faith is quite different from not yet being thoroughly acquainted with the real truth regarding Faith, while still seeking the Truth with the utmost earnestness!

The words ma kuntha thadree ma al kithabu wa la al eemanu in 42:52 only means:  You had not yet arrived at in depth knowledge of either the Book or the Faith, - your heroic efforts notwithstanding.

(III)   a. 
The root gain – fa – laam (GFL) is not always about criminal negligence or senseless or foolish heedlessness.

After narrating the Ten Commandments, and after talking about the Torah, Allah draws our attention to the need for a new revelation in the form of Al Qur’an:

‘Lest ye should say: “The Book was sent down to peoples before us, and for our part, we remained unacquainted with all that they learned by assiduous study;”…’ (6:156)

 (At least because the diligent studies of the earlier People of the Book were in languages foreign to Arabs.) 

Arabic “Gaafiloon” is here translated as “unacquainted”, by Abdullah Yusuf Ali.

b.

Therefore, 12:3 must be read with the above background in mind. Prophet Muhammed was one among the Arabs, unread, and unfamiliar with previous Scriptures.

c.

In 24:23, Allah respectfully mentions innocent, chaste, believing women who are blissfully oblivious to, or unaware of in what way scandal mongers may speak about them.

For their being blissfully unconscious of such scandalizing Al Quran uses the same root gfl, and describes them as …gafilaath…

Therefore, criminal negligence, or senseless and foolish heedlessness are not the only senses or shades of meaning that accrue from the root GFL, according to Al Qur’an.


(IV)    As for the Prophet forbidding upon himself what Allah had made lawful for him, seeking to please his wives (66:1), this forbidding cannot be construed as a religious prohibition.

Because, religious prohibition amounts to telling lies regarding God, that He has prohibited such and such a thing while He never did so. And there cannot be a sin beyond this.

It is not at all reasonable to attribute such a sin to any of the Blessed Messengers of God.

What the Blessed Prophet did cannot be anything more than to keep in limbo a lawful thing – not specified in the Quran – until his wives would relent.

Allah forbids his Messenger not to take such extreme, unwarranted steps in order to please his wives, and also assures him of his mercy and forgiveness for what had already transpired.

(V)   As for 5:17, let us ask whether the Blessed Prophet Yusuf was ignominiously destroyed or merely caused to die, as every soul is destined, unambiguously, to taste death.

For, in 40:34, the Blessed Prophet Yusuf (Joseph) is mentioned, and for his death, the word halaka is used!

After all, even according to Lane’s Lexicon, ignominious destruction is not the only sense in which halaka is used in Arabic.

In 5:17, the root word halaka is used only with respect to the Blessed Jesus and the Blessed Mother Mary, and all other living beings on the earth, and this is clear by the use of the pronoun man in the verse. So that is about their death.

But, the phenomenon of death of a righteous person (16:32) is diametrically opposite to that of a sinner (16:28).

Let us speak respectfully of those regarding whom God has spoken with respect in 16:32, and several other places in al Quran.

May Almighty Allah count us all among His righteous men and women. Amen.

Regards,
A. Ismail Sait.

[Joseph Islam]

Wa alaikum assalam brother Ismail,

Thank you for your comments.

Please see my responses to your comments in blue italics.


But in Arabic the same root is made use of to indicate any kind of error. Al Quran is witness to this:

For example, in 2:282, the root is used for an (unintentional?) error by a female witness.

In 20:52, it is used to deny any error on the part of God in the matter of knowledge of history.

With respect dear brother, if we are to remain consistent with the use of the active participle 'dall' in verse 93:7 then the comparison with verse 1:7 is not wholly inappropriate. The same participle is used in verses: 2:198, 3:90, 5:60, 6:77, 7:179, 15:56, 17:72, 23:106, 25:34, 25:42, 25:44, 26:20, 26:86, 28:50, 37:69, 41:52, 46:5, 56:51, 56:92; 68:26 and 83:32. In all these verses, the nuance is similar.

With respect and in my humble view, your comparison with the imperfect verb 'yadillu' in 2:282 or 20:52 is not a wholly consistent comparison other than the superficial comparison of roots.

Please remember that the word 'dall' has been hotly debated in classic literature for this very reason. There were some that wanted to pacify its meaning in verse 93:7 simply because it applied to the prophet.  As scholar Walid Saleh correctly notes:

• "Take verse 93:7 "did He not find you [Muhammad] erring (dallan), and guide you?" It should come as no surprise that Muslim commentators offer various interpretations in order not to give us the lexical meaning of the word d-l-l. Indeed, by al-Zamakhshari's time, a clearly articulated statement against a literal understanding of the verse had become central to how this word was interpreted. One cannot understand the word here, al-Zamakhshari indignantly states, to mean Muhammad was a heathen. No modern scholar would consider it worth his time even to entertain the idea that d-l-l is a foreign word. In this instance medieval commentators were not so much elucidating as obfuscating. [1] "

(ii) Therefore the enormous gravity of 5:5 is not present in 42:52.

The same verbal noun 'imaan' that is used in 5:5 is also used in 42:52. Although I appreciate the context is different, this does not deter from the meaning of the word 'imaan'.

The words ma kuntha thadree ma al kithabu wa la al eemanu in 42:52 only means:  You had not yet arrived at in depth knowledge of either the Book or the Faith, - your heroic efforts notwithstanding.

With respect, I find your interpretation and underlying insinuation somewhat disagreeable. The explicit text of the Quran states 'la imaanu'. (nor the faith). There is no mention of the 'degree / extent' of knowledge or faith mentioned in the Holy text. Your comment is once again 'interpolative’ especially the latter sentiment which I find has no explicit warrant from the Quran. With respect, I find that you have inadvertently 'read' this 'interpolation' into the Quran to support your extant theological perspective.

(iii) The root gain – fa – laam (GFL) is not always about criminal negligence or senseless or foolish heedlessness.

This is not what was implied and with utmost respect, I find your citation both a red herring and a straw man argument.

My citation of 12:3 was in the following context: "Would a false prophet intent on writing a false scripture expose their futility of yore in such a manner so publicly so as to have it preserved in posterity?"

This question was asked in the backdrop of many claims and within classical literature that surrounds the prophet in hagiography. Furthermore, certain modern day views of the adherents believe the prophet to be 'hazar nazar' (ever witnessing and present), where he was granted all knowledge et al.

This was not necessarily an assertion over the aggressiveness of the word 'ghafil' in the context used. 

(iv) As for the Prophet forbidding upon himself what Allah had made lawful for him, seeking to please his wives (66:1), this forbidding cannot be construed as a religious prohibition.

Because, religious prohibition amounts to telling lies regarding God, that He has prohibited such and such a thing while He never did so. And there cannot be a sin beyond this.

I trust the verse is clear for anyone to read. There was something lawful which the prophet made unlawful for a particular reason. The context is not elaborated to any substantial degree but the point was so important, that it was deemed appropriate for it to be included into the glorious, majestic reading of the Quran for posterity.

There is also evidence that such citations in the Quran against the Prophet serve as admonishments when explicitly stated. Please see verse 80:11.

Let us speak respectfully of those regarding whom God has spoken with respect in 16:32, and several other places in al Quran.

With respect, I find this comment superfluous and I trust that you have not implied that any of my comments intended any disrespect whatsoever. Therefore, I take your comment as a general one and not in the backdrop of any material shared in this thread.

The comments that I once wrote were indicative of the thoughts that passed my mind as an ardent critic and academic that came to the conclusion that God had indeed spoken via the Quran. It was the honesty and candidness in which the scripture spoke which convinced me of its truth, not the 'softened', 'pacified' interpretations of many of its adherents. It was in this context that the post was shared.

With respect and warm regards,
Joseph.


REFERENCE:

[1] SALEH, W. The Etymological Fallacy and Quranic Studies: Muhammad, Paradise, and Late Antiquity, University of Toronto, Page 3

[Ismail]

Salaam.

(I)  In 93:7 the word relevent to our discussion is a noun, infinitive, and singular.

In 68:26, it's plural is used.

In 1:7 again, its plural is used.

In the above two places where the plural is used, as for 1: 7, there is absolute consensus that its meaning carries the gravest sense.

And, as for 68:26, there is again absolute consensus that it carries the softest sense.

The dispute is as regards 93:7

Regarding it I have already made my position clear.

(II)  As for 42:52, my stress is on ma kuntha thadree.

Here the root is DRY, and not 'ALM. Yet translators generally take it to mean: "you were not knowing". I said that it means you were not having the in depth knowledge that comes from patient persevering application of the mind.

That is why I said the verse doesn't say that he was totally ignorant of Al Eeman or Al Kithab.

Regards,
A. Ismail Sait.

 

[Joseph Islam]

Wa alaikum assalam

Please see my responses to your comments in blue italics.

(I)  In 93:7 the word relevent to our discussion is a noun, infinitive, and singular.

In 68:26, it's plural is used.

In 1:7 again, its plural is used.

With respect, I do not see the relevance of citing the Quranic singular vs plural form. The point is regarding lexical meaning given the participle used in similar contexts.  The requirement to soften the meaning of 93:7 is an old discussion and I have respectfully given you my reasons why I feel such a ‘soft’ meaning is usually taken without concrete warrant as opposed to its arguably truer literal lexical meaning.

In the above two places where the plural is used, as for 1: 7, there is absolute consensus that its meaning carries the gravest sense.

Nothwithstanding the contention against the relevance of citing plural vs singular, you have argued from consensus or an argumentum ad populum, which has little relevance in a purely academic discussion. Such an argument is well acknowledged to be a fallacious argument.  If you are going to argue from the perspective that the 'majority' is right, then with respect, I have nothing further to add to this discussion.

And, as for 68:26, there is again absolute consensus that it carries the softest sense.

Please see my response above with regards argumentum ad populum.

Here the root is DRY, and not 'ALM. Yet translators generally take it to mean: "you were not knowing". I said that it means you were not having the in depth knowledge that comes from patient persevering application of the mind.

With respect, I once again find this interpolative without any concrete warrant from the Quran.

I trust this concludes our discussion on this matter. In the end, we can always take the best from each other’s arguments and of course, agree to disagree in what is left.

Regards,
Joseph

[Ismail]

Sfalaam.

The lexical meaning of the word in question is, without dispute, to err.

The degree of the error in question, its graveness or grievousness, is determined by the context.

That is all.

Now for your genuine apprehensions:

Sayed Ahmed Bareily's contention that the Prophet is omnipresent, is openly discussed and convincingly refuted by Maudoodi in his thafseer.

By the grace of Allah, I do not belong to any extremist ideology - not even to any organization in the name of Maudoodi or any other scholar.

I took interest in this website merely in the hope, that it will help me in my endeavors towards understanding the Qur'an.

Your refusal to accept any other source other than the Book itself for its final, authentic and authoritative elucidation, is what keeps me here.

May the Almighty bless our cooperation.

Regards,
A. Ismail Sait. 

[Joseph Islam]

Wa alaikum assalam brother Ismail,

Please see my responses to your comments in blue italics.

The lexical meaning of the word in question is, without dispute, to err.

I agree

The degree of the error in question, its graveness or grievousness, is determined by the context.

Indeed dear brother and this is where the discussion resides, where I have provided you with similar contexts where the word is used in my humble opinion and why I do not necessarily concur with the 'consensus' when it departs from a true lexical meaning.

By the grace of Allah, I do not belong to any extremist ideology - not even to any organization in the name of Maudoodi or any other scholar.

I am very pleased to hear this dear brother. I have never doubted this, only questioned it when your argument leaned towards an argumentum ad populum. However, thank you for clarifying this.

I took interest in this website merely in the hope, that it will help me in my endeavors towards understanding the Qur'an.

Dear brother, we all learn from each other and I hope sincerely that this will continue, God willing.

Your refusal to accept any other source other than the Book itself for its final, authentic and authoritative elucidation, is what keeps me here.

And I trust that you will find me welcoming. Foremost, we are brothers in faith. Everything else is academic and of course we can discuss the finer elements of the Quran, its guidance, critique each other's view ardently, yet with love and affection with a view to broaden our intellectual horizons. Please do not see this nothing more than a discussion over the proverbial campfire on a nice warm evening next to the beach under the stars.

I am sure you would like your views to be 'tested' in light of the Quran as I would like mine. This is how we grow in learning as I am sure you will agree.

May the Almighty bless our cooperation.

Ameen.

Your brother in faith,
Joseph.

[Ismail]

Salaam.

You said:

"I am sure you would like your views to be 'tested' in light of the Quran as I would like mine. This is how we grow in learning as I am sure you will agree."

Great! I agree.

Regards,
A. Ismail Sait.

[Duster]

Shalom / Peace. Great discussion to read with mutual respect. Great stuff!  Thanks.

[Ismail]

Salaam.

With respect to the subject: proving the divine origin of the Qur'an, the best initiative will be to present a copy of the Qur'an to each of them.

For, the subject under consideration has two aspects:

One is the subjective aspect. For example, anything of divine origin evokes a certain solemn response in the beholder. Even a superficial examination of a tiny insect fills the beholder with unrivaled awe and admiration for the One who is responsible for its being.

Next is the objective aspect – that depends on the earnest efforts of the individual who studies it.

Presenting a copy of the Qur'an to a brother belonging to another community is not irrelevant in today’s world teeming with the ubiquitous Internet.

Printed copies of books have their own utility, and enjoy a unique and respectable place in modern man’s life.

What compelled me to write this piece is something I read a long while ago in the monthly journal Islamic Voice, published from Bangalore, India.   

In an article written by a new European convert to Islam, the author stated that it is not the image of the present day Muslims that is causing the educated people of the West to embrace Islam in large numbers, but it is the power of the Qur'an that is responsible for this. They diligently study the Qur'an, and are convinced of its veracity.

Regards,
A. Ismail Sait.

[Zack]

Hello all,

I am new here, I introduced myself as a monotheist outside of Islam on another post. This question is interesting, to understand the intent I want to ask some questions in return...

- In your mind, who are you referring to as "Non-Believers"? Is it anyone who doesn't identify themselves formally as a Muslim? Or are non-believers those who embrace the eternal truth of "There is no god but God"
- Do you believe that the "People of the Book" (ie. Christians today) have a Kitab that is of divine origin as well?

The reason to ask is if you are approaching the question with "my book is of divine origin therefore yours is not", then there is roadblock ahead. For me, I have numerous copies of the Bible and  Qur'ans on my shelf, they are all grounded in one message.... The oneness of God. You have a great starting point there I think in the starting point being a continuous consistent message, rather than "Us vs them".