Irrefutable Refutation of Islam

THE IRREFUTABLE REFUTATION OF ISLAM [email protected] The most emphatic, logical refutation of any world religion.

THE IRREFUTABLE REFUTATION OF ISLAM

THE IRREFUTABLE REFUTATION OF ISLAM The logical and practical failure of the Quranic challenge, and the inescapable effects of this on Islam and the God of Islam. And if ye are in doubt as to what We have revealed from time to time to Our servant, then produce a Sura like it; and call your witnesses or helpers (If there are any) besides God, if your (doubts) are true. But if ye cannot – and of a surety ye cannot – then fear the Fire whose fuel is men and stones, - which is prepared for those who reject Faith. (2:23-24)

INTRODUCTION: THE QURANIC CHALLENGE INTRODUCTION: If your religion were false, would you want to know? If a watertight logical disproof of your faith existed, would you want to read it? And, having read it, understood it, and believed it, would you change your life according to what you have discovered to be true? Every honest, self-respecting person should (eventually) answer, “yes” to all these questions. This essay is a watertight logical disproof of Islam, which is followed by roughly a quarter of the world's population and is growing daily. PROLOGUE: Muhammad, the charismatic prophet, faced many people who doubted the divinity of his revelation, the Quran. In response to this, Allah, using his infinite intellect, issued the ultimate rebuttal; the clearest demonstration of divine logical intelligence ever; intended to prove the divinity of his revelation and to silence the doubters, once and for all. Muhammad confidently issued the challenge Allah had given him: “produce a sura like it, otherwise fear hell.” According to tradition, no one has ever succeeded in meeting this divine challenge. IMPORTANCE OF THE CHALLENGE: The importance of this challenge cannot be underestimated. It is a do-it-yourself proof of Godauthorship. A built-in, God-authored, DIY proof of divinity would be the envy of every religion. Religious thinkers have continuously tried to prove their revelation is divine (or even just that God exists) with only limited success. This challenge proves the Quran is divine (and, therefore, that God exists) and individuals can take the challenge and discover the truth, for themselves. Never before, in any revelation, has any God made a more bold logical argument, to prove a more audacious aim: the divinity of His revelation, which is where the problem comes in.

THE PROBLEM: ERRORS IN THE CHALLENGE 1. THE WORST PLACE TO FIND ERRORS The Quranic challenge is the worst possible place to find errors. It is the worst place to find errors for three reasons: First, the Quranic challenge is part of the rational defence and promotion of Islam (Muslim apologetics). A rational defence is important because (1) it provides the reasons to believe something, and (2) it provides a unique glimpse into the rational intelligence of the author/creator of something. Second, the Quranic challenge is the most important part of the rational defence of Islam. It is the most important part because (1) It is written by God, and is, therefore, special in some way, (2) it is one of a kind; there are no other verses like it, and (3) it is repeated several times, which signifies its importance. Third, the Quranic challenge is important because of (1) the aim of the challenge. The aim of the challenge is to provide a DIY proof of the divinity of the Quran. Such a proof would be the envy of every religion, and the holy grail of religious apologetics. (2) The effect of the challenge. The challenge has, to some extent, achieved its aim, and has sent people to heaven or to hell, depending on whether Islam is a true or false religion. Thus, the challenge has had an infinite effect. CONCLUSION: Thus, an error in the Quranic challenge undermines the rational foundation of the faith, and the rational intelligence of the author, in the most emphatic, public, embarrassing way imaginable, by undermining the crown jewel of God-authored, Muslim apologetics: the Quranic challenge. This is the absolute last place we would expect to find errors. An error in such an important verse

1

would be an emphatic disproof of the divinity of the Quranic challenge, if not the entire revelation. 2. THE WORST ERRORS TO FIND The Quranic challenge contains the worst errors imaginable: logical errors. Logical errors are worse than any other type of errors because (1) logic is indubitable. Logic cannot be doubted, it has no grey area and it is as certain as “1+1=2”. Thus, if we find a logical error in the Quranic challenge, that error is 100% certain. (2) Logic is a priori. Basically, this means that to find out whether something is logical or illogical does not require any observation or experimentation; it can be done in the comfort of an armchair, with your eyes closed. (3) Logical errors more directly attack rational intelligence of the author/creator of something, more so than any other type of error. (4) Logical intelligence is the most important part of human or divine intelligence. No type of intelligence means anything without the ability to think logically. (E.g., a person with great computational intelligence but little logical intelligence is called an “idiot savant”.) CONCLUSION: Logical errors are certain, they do not require any empirical research and they directly attack God's rational intelligence in a way that no other errors can. No error is more unforgivable for God than a logical error or errors. If a person, who claimed to be the traditional God (all-powerful, all-wise, all-good, etc.,) made a logical error, that would be an emphatic disproof of divinity. Similarly, if a revelation contains a logical error, that is also an emphatic disproof of the divinity of the

THE IRREFUTABLE REFUTATION OF ISLAM part of the revelation that contains the error, if not the entire revelation. (This essay also points out practical errors in the challenge, these are errors that interfere with the practical workability of the challenge, rendering the challenge practically useless. The reader will find the practical shortcomings of the challenge just as serious as logical errors. For the missing details, which constitute the practical errors of the challenge, and prevent the challenge from functioning practically, also prevent the challenge from functioning logically; a challenge which is not sufficiently clear, cannot be sufficiently logical.)

COMBINED CONCLUSION: Any error in the Quranic challenge would constitute a refutation of the Quranic challenge, if not the entire Quran. Logical errors in any verses would constitute a refutation of the divinity of these verses, if not the entire Quran. However, logical errors, in the Quranic challenge, are the combination of two standalone, emphatic disproofs of divinity. A more emphatic, explosive disproof of the divinity of any verse can scarcely be imagined and this will have serious, inescapable implications on the rest of the Quran. (Such a disproof might be considered a emphatic disproof to 2 the second power; that is, an (emphatic disproof) .)

THE LOGIC OF THE QURANIC CHALLENGE The practical challenge has an underlying logic, which validates (or fails to validate) the practical challenge (the process of bringing and judging a submission). The underlying logic of the Quranic challenge might be set out as follows: Premise 1: Inimitability proves divinity. Premise 2: The Quran is inimitable. 1 Conclusion: Therefore, the Quran is divine. This is the logic at the heart of the Quranic challenge and this is how Muslims have understood the challenge throughout history, with only a very few exceptions.

LOGICAL ERROR 1 INTRODUCTION: The following error is one of the simplest, most incontrovertible, and most serious of errors in the Quranic challenge. An error is the violation of a law or rule. Thus, to prove that an error exists, we must prove: (1) That the rule exists and (2) that the rule has been violated. RULE: The rule, in this case, is simple and indubitable: in order for the conclusion of an argument to be proved, the premises must all be true. THE VIOLATION: Premise 1 of the Quranic argument is, “inimitability proves divinity.” This premise is really the essence of the Quranic challenge and it is provably false. In order to prove this premise is false and that inimitability does not prove divinity, we merely have to prove that inimitably might prove something else; that inimitability might prove divinity or something else. If inimitability might prove something other than divinity, then inimitability does not prove divinity. I believe there are two very reasonable alternative explanations of divinity. FIRST OPTION: The fact that no human beings can imitate the Quran does not prove that the Quran is divine, because humans and God are not the only potential authors. We must also consider that angelic beings, such as demons, or the devil 2 himself, might have written the Quran. This is an option that no thinking person can ignore. After all, if we are going to allow that a book was written by one divine being (God), we cannot then rule out the possibility that it was written by another divine being (a rogue angel, a demon, or the devil). (The most obvious objection to this option is to say that the Quran does not look as though it was written by demons, or the devil. However, it might be in the devil's interest to make his false revelation look “good”, for certain reasons.) SECOND OPTION: The second option is that the Quran might 4 be man-made. If there is ever been anyone who was the best at something, then that person has been inimitable, to some 3 extent. It is likely, that in rare circumstances, a person with a rare talent, might work extraordinarily hard, and might create

2

something with a high degree of inimitability; that is, they might create something which might not be imitated (even nearly) for a thousand years, or ever. This seems to be a perfectly reasonable option. On the other hand, for the Muslim to rule out this option, is very difficult: to rule out this option, the Muslim would have to prove that “human inimitability ” does not exist; that is, that no human achievement is inimitable. Thus, to rule out this option, the Muslim must imitate at least some of the greatest human achievements. Since it is unlikely that this will be possible, the second option remains a valid option. CONCLUSION: Thus, if these options cannot be ruled out (and they cannot) then inimitability does not prove divinity, to any certainty, and the first premise (the essence of the Quranic challenge) is false, the challenge is invalid, and there is no point in even trying to imitate the Quran. The failure of this premise constitutes the failure of the entire challenge. This is an error which might disprove divinity in any verse, in a verse in which any error might disprove divinity. This is a clear violation of a basic indubitable logical law and is indubitable as a result. (The simplicity of the law/rule and the obviousness of the error makes the error more 2 inexcusable.) This is an (emphatic disproof) .

LOGICAL ERROR 2 INTRODUCTION: The following “error” is really more of a shortcoming than an error, but it is just as serious. An error is the violation of a law. Thus, to prove that an error exists, we must prove: (1) That the rule exists and (2) that the rule has been violated. RULE: The rule, in this case, is simple and indubitable: in order for the conclusion of an argument to be proved, the premises must all be true. VIOLATION: The second premise is, “the Quran is inimitable.” (The premise is loosely based on the phrase,

THE IRREFUTABLE REFUTATION OF ISLAM “and of a surety you cannot.”) The premise might be true, but it is not proven in the least. The majority of the world’s 5 population has never even heard of the challenge. Conservatively, 95% of the world’s population has never attempted to imitate the Quran. Thus, the “no one can imitate it” premise is not proven even slightly, so the conclusion of the argument (the Quran is divine) is not proven even slightly. The reason that I have included this premise as an “error” is because a failed proof (a proof which cannot do its job) is as good as an error. Anything leading to the logical impotence of the challenge is a type of error. CONCLUSION: If the second premise is not proven, then the Quranic challenge is not proven to any certainty and there is no point in even trying to imitate it. This error might disprove divinity in any verse and it is found in a verse in which any error might disprove divinity. This is a clear violation of a basic indubitable logical law. (The simplicity of the law/rule and the obviousness of the error makes the error more inexcusable.) 2 This is an (emphatic disproof) .

LOGICAL ERROR 3 INTRODUCTION: The following error does not strictly affect the functioning of the challenge, but might be of interest nonetheless. To prove that an error exists, we must prove: (1) That the rule exists and (2) that the rule has been violated. THE RULE: The following rule is also a simple and indubitable logical rule: For the conclusion to be proved, a premise cannot be the same as the conclusion. When a premise is the same as the conclusion, this fallacy is called a circular argument. THE VIOLATION: The challenge tells us, that we can ask for anyone's help, except for God. The implication is that God will not help us, because God wrote the Quran and he will not help anyone to imitate it. Thus, the challenge assumes the very thing it is trying to prove (that God wrote the Quran) and this is a well-known logical fallacy. CONCLUSION: The error might not directly affect the functioning of the challenge, but it is still an error that might disprove divinity in any verse, in a verse in which any error 2 might disprove divinity. This is an (emphatic disproof) .

PRACTICAL ERROR 1 INTRODUCTION: The following error is not a logical error, it is a practical error, but the reader will find it as serious, if not more serious, than any logical error (if that is possible). To prove that an error exists, we must prove: (1) That the rule exists and (2) that the rule has been violated. THE RULE: For a practical challenge to work, it must be practically possible. For the challenge to work a submission must be judged (and found inferior). On the basis of this, belief in the divinity of the Quran would increase. If a submission cannot be judged (and found inferior) because of some shortfall in the challenge, then the challenge does not work and any increase of belief in the divinity of the Quran, on the basis of this challenge, would be unfounded. The challenge would, then, essentially be a false, deceptive challenge, since it increases belief, but has no right to do so. THE VIOLATION: There are three basic omissions or “points of uncertainty” in the challenge, which make judging a

3

submission (and finding it inferior) impossible. The three basic omissions or “points of uncertainty” are: (1) the absence or uncertainty of inimitable features (2) the absence or uncertainty of sub-standards and (3) the absence or uncertainty of judgement criteria and methods. INIMITABILE FEATURES: What is inimitable about the 6 Quran? There are many proposed inimitable features. (literary, legislative, mathematical, prophetic, scientific, moral inimitability, etc.) Inimitability might consist of any combination of proposed inimitable features. (And there are many possible combinations.) Without knowing what inimitably consists of, no one can be sure how to judge a submission. Thus the challenge cannot run its course in the real world, and is, therefore, essentially a false, deceptive challenge, which essentially tricks people into believing Islam, but has no right to do so. PROOF: The reader can easily verify the truth of the above propositions. If the reader investigates further, in Muslim sources, they will find a great variance of proposed features (some more common than others) and no method of deciding between them. The reader will find no exceptions to these propositions whatsoever, making these propositions completely certain. CONCLUSION: This point alone will make judging a submission a unclear issue; something it is impossible to do with certainty. This makes the practical challenge (the challenge which should be perfect), practically useless, and effectively deceptive. This omission should make us seriously question the divinity of the challenge.

PRACTICAL ERROR 2 SUB-STANDARDS: What does each inimitable feature consist of? There are many potential sub-standards. (rhythm, rhyme, meter, word choice, literary devices, turn of phrase, etc.) Inimitable features might consist of any combination of sub-standards. (And there are many possible combinations.) Without knowing what each inimitable feature consists of, no one can be sure how to judge a submission. Thus the challenge cannot run its course in the real world, and is, therefore, essentially a false, deceptive challenge, which essentially tricks people into believing Islam, but has no right to do so. PROOF: The reader can easily verify the truth of the above propositions. If the reader investigates further, in Muslim sources, they will find a complete absence of even proposed sub-standards (except perhaps when it comes to literary inimitability, where the reader will find a variance of sub-standards and no method of deciding between them). The reader will find no exceptions to these propositions whatsoever, making these propositions completely certain. CONCLUSION: This point alone will make judging a submission a unclear issue; something it is impossible to do with certainty. This makes the practical challenge (the challenge which should be perfect), practically useless, and effectively deceptive. This omission should make us seriously question the divinity of the challenge.

THE IRREFUTABLE REFUTATION OF ISLAM PRACTICAL ERROR 3 JUDGEMENT CRITERIA & METHODS: What does each substandard consist of, or how should we judge each substandard? There are many potential judgement criteria and methods of judgement. Sub-standards might consist of any combination of judgement criteria and/or methods (And there are many possible combinations.) Without knowing each substandard consists of, no one can be sure how to judge a submission. Thus the challenge cannot run its course in the real world, and is, therefore, essentially a false, deceptive challenge, which essentially tricks people into believing Islam, but has no right to do so. PROOF: The reader can easily verify the truth of the above propositions. If the reader investigates further, in Muslim sources, they will find a complete absence of even proposed (hypothetical) judgement criteria. This point is completely certain (there is no exception to this point whatsoever) and the reader can easily verify it. CONCLUSION: This point alone will make judging a submission a unclear issue; something it is impossible to do with certainty. This makes the practical challenge (the challenge which should be perfect), practically useless, and effectively deceptive. Again, this omission should make us seriously question the divinity of the challenge. Yet all these practical errors together constitute an emphatic disproof of divinity. (All three practical “errors” (one error might be excused, but the complete absence of any definitive judgement criteria, leading to the practical impotence of the challenge, is inexcusable.)

CONCLUSION TO PRACTICAL ERRORS7 CONCLUSION: Due to the omission of (1) - (3), a submission cannot be brought or judged and the challenge cannot run its full course in the real world. This means that the challenge has no right to prove or persuade; it provides no confirmation or evidence that the Quran is inimitable or divine. Practically

speaking, it is a false (illusionary/non-existent) challenge. It is highly unlikely that an all-wise, honest God would construct a false challenge, which could never be practically implemented and which would effectively deceive people into believing Islam. An honest all-wise God would have written a proof that worked or not written it at all. Indeed, this is so absurd (sinister even) that it invalidates the Quranic challenge, if not the entire Quran. OVERALL PROOF: This point can be easily proven, since for the last ±1500 years there has not been a single challenge with inimitable features, sub-standards or judgement criteria. The reader will not find even a single viable challenge, which has, or can, run its full course. There is no place to send a submission where it will be fairly judged according to a fixed method (or any method). What the reader will find is thousands of submissions, dismissed very zealously, but for no clear (definite) reason; that is, dismissed very subjectively. This point is completely certain and there is no exception to this point whatsoever. The reader can easily verify this. (WHY THERE CAN BE NO VIABLE CHALLENGE: First, a viable challenge does not exist, because no viable challenge can exist. The moment a person draws up a challenge, with specific inimitable features, substandards and judgement criteria, they go beyond what the Quran endorses, and their challenge is seen for what it is: a human invention (and one human invention has no more authority than the next human invention). Thus, it is impossible to construct a viable challenge (a challenge containing specific inimitable features, sub-standards and judgement criteria) that also is authoritative. In short, a viable Quranic challenge is impossible. Second, once the challenge is set out in detail, we will probably find that 8 what we first thought was inimitable is not inimitable.)

.

AN ADDITIONAL PROBLEM The challenge lacks inimitable features, sub-standards and judgment criteria and methods. All this vagueness leads to the additional problem, that the challenge can be used deceptively. Every uncertain part of the challenge can be exploited. Because of the vagueness of like, a person might alternate between the strong and in-between version when it suited them. Because of the vagueness of inimitability, people might alternate between the mathematical miracle of the Quran, to the medical miracle, to the literary miracle, etc., when it suited them. Moreover, because of the absence of sub-standards people might choose whichever standards suited them and a different set of standards when the first set failed. The challenge has enough latitude to defend even a bad book indefinitely. Would an all-wise God use a proof which could be used deceptively, to deceive people into believing the truth? It is highly doubtful that God would attempt to prove the divinity of his revelation with such a dubious argument.

CONCLUSION The most crucially important logical utterance that God ever spoke; the apex of God-authored apologetics, is riddled with clear, embarrassing, debilitating errors. It is the perfect storm: the worst place to find errors, and the worst errors to find. The mind reels to comprehend such staggering blunders: a practical challenge, with logical underpinnings, fails logically and practically, in a way that is clear, indubitable, complete and, frankly, embarrassing. This is a superabundant disproof of divinity; this is overkill. A greater collection of errors, in a more significant passage of scripture, is unthinkable; we could hardly have invented more serious collection of errors if we had tried. Whoever wrote such a error-filled proof, is clearly not worthy to be called, “God”. Strictly, these errors only invalidate the Quranic challenge. However, this indirectly impacts on our view of the entire Quran and the author of the Quran: the idea that an all-knowing, all-wise, all-good God would allow the pinnacle of Muslim apologetics to be corrupted so thoroughly, so that his religion could be emphatically disproved, is absurd and untenable. It is far more likely that the entire revelation is false and has no connection to an all-knowing, all-wise, all-good God. People will react to this essay by saying that it is arrogant to assume that a short essay can conclusively invalidate a world religion on the basis of the criticism one or two verses. However, this essay is bold only in proportion to the boldness of the Quranic challenge. If it is possible to prove a religion with one verse, then it is also possible to disprove a religion with one verse. The “arrogance” of this essay is made possible only by the absurd ambitiousness of the Quranic challenge.

4

THE IRREFUTABLE REFUTATION OF ISLAM

NOTES (BASED ON COMMON OBJECTIONS) [1] Attacking the premises: The Muslim’s first point of attack must be the premises of the Quranic argument, as they appear in the essay. Admittedly, for the purpose of the essay, the Quranic argument was simplified as much as possible, in order to make everything as understandable as possible. However, the reader will find that a more literal interpretation will not differ in any significant way from the simplified challenge and that the simplified version is a fair interpretation of the challenge. [2] “We must also consider that angelic beings, such as demons, or the devil himself, might have written the Quran”: In response to the first option, Muslims argue that the Quran is filled with many good statements: statements about God, and how we should respond to him. The devil would surely not say so many good things. The devil would probably say mostly bad things, and there are no bad things in the Quran. However, this is a very one-dimensional view of the devil. If an intelligent deceiver wanted to lead good people astray, he might well write a book containing many great truths, without any bad statements, but which contradicted or left out certain crucial truths, which would influence whether the person goes to heaven or to hell. The devil would never have any great success (especially with good people) if he only made evil statements, because everyone would see straight through him. So an intelligent deceiver remains a possibility and this objection cannot defeat the 1st option. (Notice, also, the Muslim cannot force anyone to accept his idea of the devil (part of Islam) to convince them that Islam is correct!) Furthermore, Mohammad himself initially thought his revelation was from the devil. I presume that his revelations at that time were also filled with apparently good messages. Thus, if the Allah's Messenger can think the devil is responsible for apparently good verses, why can many Muslim's not grasp this concept? [3] “If there has ever been anyone who was the best at something, then that person has been inimitable, to some extent”: Muslims rightly point out that even though some great human achievements are inimitable, the difference between the vest and second best human achievement is small. In other words, the second best achievement is “like” the best achievement. The Quran, on the other hand, is supposed to be so much greater than its closest competition, that it must be divine. So the difference is between divine inimitability and human inimitability is only a matter of degree. The bottom line is that the space between the Quran and its closest competition, and the space between other great achievements and their competition, is not comparable. The whole issue is unclear. Therefore, this objection cannot defeat the 2nd option. [4] “The second option is that the Quran might be man-made”: In response to the second option, Muslims argue that Mohammad was illiterate, making the achievement more inimitable. In response to this point, we should note that an illiterate person could still memorize and compose large amounts of poetry. Mohammad was not the first or last illiterate poet. According to tradition, the Greek poet, Homer, author of the Iliad, was blind. Almost all of Mohammad’s contemporaries would have recited their poems from memory. Many ordinary Muslims have memorize the entire Quran, word-for-word. People have been known to have photographic as well as phonographic memories (Freud, for instance). It would take an extraordinarily talented person to be sure, and there is no doubt that the Quran is a work of an extraordinary mind, but extraordinary minds do exist, after all. So human inimitability remains a plausible option. Therefore, this objection cannot defeat the 2nd option. [5] “The majority of the world’s population has never even heard of the challenge”: In response to this, the Muslim argues that if no Arabic poets at the time (the golden-age of Arabic literature) could imitate the Quran, then no person could imitate it now. However, in response to this objection we should note, (1) that it is unfair to judge 99.9˚% of the world by the failure of 0.1˚% of the world, (2) this objection does not rule out the possibility that the Quran was written by the best poet at the time, and (3) there is no remaining evidence of attempts to meet the challenge. So we will never actually know whether Mohammad’s contemporaries managed to meet the challenge or not, or whether submissions were destroyed, because they posed a genuine threat to Islam. [6] “There are many proposed inimitable features”: By far the most widely accepted inimitable feature is literary inimitability but it is also this feature that is most groundless. Literary standards are notoriously subjective. As anyone knows, “beauty is in the eye of the beholder,” and, “there’s no accounting for taste.” What one person finds beautiful, someone else thinks is ugly. The most we can say is that there are certain traits (symmetry, proportion, purity) which most people find beautiful. Even so, there is no wrong or right when it comes to beauty. When someone says something is beautiful they are only ever expressing their personal opinion. Put differently, there is no objective standard of beauty, or eloquence, and there never can be. The Quran might agree with certain standards of literary beauty, but it contradicts others, and it is impossible to show that the standards that the Quran agrees with are more important or correct than the standards that it disagrees with, because beauty is subjective. God couldn’t possibly have picked a shakier (more subjective) foundation on which base the divinity of his revelation! It is highly doubtful that God would attempt to prove the divinity of his revelation with such a dubious argument. [7] Objections to practical errors: In response to the practical errors the Muslim argues that judging a submission is possible, because the Arabic language, at that time, had certain established norms and standards. However, (1) The Muslim inevitably fails to clarify these standards, (2) the Muslim, again, cannot show that these standards are in any way more correct or more important than other literary standards, which the Quran does not meet and (3) whatever these standards may be, they inevitably are not specific enough to make judging a submission (according to fixed, objective standards) possible. The Muslim is unable to produce even a single instance where a submission has been judged, according to fixed, transparent criteria and methods. [8] “We will probably find that what we first thought was inimitable is not inimitable”: If anyone does ever get around to drawing up a real, practical challenge, then we will probably find that what we thought was inimitable is not inimitable, after all. Once the challenge is set out in detail, we will be able to interrogate every detail, and we will find that no detail, or combination of details, is in any way miraculous or inimitable. For instance, the literary inimitability of the Quran is often thought to include its remarkable rhythm and rhyme. But rhyme is hardly miraculous or inimitable, whichever way you look at it. Rhythm, also, is not miraculous or inimitable: a literary rhythm is no more inimitable than a drumbeat is inimitable. In fact, drumbeats can be a great deal more intricate than literary rhythms. (Additionally, rhythm often has more to do with the way something is said than with the words themselves.) The burden of proof lies with the Muslim to prove that any literary feature in the Quran is truly inimitable, more than any other great poetry is inimitable. After all, Muslims paint the Quran in broad, obsequious strokes, but fail to prove that even one detail of the Quran is inimitable. Muslims hide behind a plethora of vague expressions such as “sublime eloquence” while failing to adequately explain these words in clear, precise terms.

5