In answer to the video "Quran and Mysticism: "Bow Down Before Adam!""
He is amazed when he reads about giants roaming this earth but in the HB, the nefilim, existed before and after the flood. This race of people had the peculiarity of counting giants among them, who even survived the flood Numb13:22,33,Josh12:4. In proportion, these giants were to the Israelites what a grasshopper is to a regular human being.
Disregarding the basic laws of physics making it impossible for such giants to even exist, some Islam critics misuse a hadith speaking of Adam's stature as measuring some 25m (60 cubits). However the reports say that height was in the garden, a special place that might have had different laws of physics. These reports dont say whether his height was reduced after he exited the garden. But it can be infered from the statements that humanity has not ceased living in a state of decreased height and will be increased to Adam's stature only if they enter in heaven. The literal rendering is
"the creation is still lacking after him until now"
meaning mankind has continued to be deprived of that height, or that mankind has not achieved this height since Adam’s left the garden. It is to be noted that many channels of transmission of that hadith do not include the part about Adam's progeny, leading some scholars to conjecture it might have been an inserted comment by the reporter.
There are in addition Quranic verses saying the physics of the universe, and the nature of humans themselves will be very different after the resurrection. This could allow certain phenomenon like humans reaching gigantic proportions. Other traditions inform us about the grandiosity of things in Paradise as a means of increasing our hope in Allah for these amazing rewards
"Verily, in Paradise there is a tree in whose shade a rider could travel for one hundred years".
The metaphorical understanding of such statements is thus not far fetched either. As a side note, the Talmud has 3 views on Adam's height; he was immeasurably tall with his head reaching the dome of heaven while he stood on earth, or his body length spanned the distance from East to West, or he had a ‘post-fall' height of some 150 feet.
In answer to the video "Quran and Mysticism: "Bow Down Before Adam!""
The prophet Muhammad lived among his people for 40 years before the start of his prophetic mission, without anything from his speech foretelling either fully or partly a knowledge of the information and principles provided within the book
12:3,102,28:44,11:49"These are announcements relating to the unseen which We reveal to you, you did not know them-- (neither) you nor your people-- before this; therefore be patient; surely the end is for those who guard (against evil).".
The only thing distinguishing him from the majority of his people was his pure conduct and detachment from their ungodly habits
10:16"Say: If Allah had desired (otherwise) I would not have recited it to you, nor would He have taught it to you; indeed I have lived a lifetime among you before it; do you not then understand?".
As stated in 42:52, before his appointment to prophethood, he never had any idea that he was going to receive a Book, or that he should receive one. He was wholly unaware of the heavenly Books and the subjects they treated.
Likewise, although he believed in Allah, intellectually he was not aware of the requirements of the Faith.
In addition, from a strictly materialistic worldview, nothing indicates, neither from his character or the consequences upon himself and his loved ones, that he initiated his mission to satisfy any greed or lust. During the 40 years he lived among them, he was a person whose integrity they never questioned, and whom they considered to be an upright person just like Salih or Lut prior to the beginning of their preaching 11:62,162. Just like Jeremiah was inspired with warnings and glad tidings to his people for 23 years Jer25:3, the Quran was revealed over the span of 23 years. Practically speaking, the idea of a secret teacher following Muhammad for 23 years and in different locations and circumstances where revelation is known to have descended is completely untenable: while hiding with his companions in ravines, in his home with his family, on the battlefield etc. besides fulfilling every function and responsibilities of a statesman, husband, friend, teacher etc without ever being noticed.
Besides the first short revelation which descended upon him as he had secluded himself in a cave to escape his sinful, idolatrous environment which he abhorred, all other revelations came to him openly with many times multiple witnesses present. The prophet was no mystic sitting in hope of being contacted by the divine. He was a righteous monotheist, a hanif among his people who searched for the truth using his inherited knowledge and observation of the nature around him. Many verses allude to his pre-revelational condition with words evoking how he had no expectation whatsoever of coming in contact with the divine realm and being chosen for prophethood.
This teacher of his, from the mass of informants proposed throughout the ages by the critics of Islam, from Waraqa b. Nawfal to ‘Ubayd Allah b. Jahsh and ‘Uthman b. al-Huwayrith, to the anonymous hanif communities or other monotheists such as Zayd ibn Amr, the hermit Bahira, some unnamed foreign slaves knowledgeable in Judeo-Christian oral and written traditions, to Zayd ibn Thabit's crucial role in originating the Quranic text, none of them could have done what is alleged that they did without being noticed, and without eventually coming out against that student or plagiarist who was taking all the credits for himself. So either that teacher was the most stealthy human to ever live, or it was another entity.
Supposing Muhammad's source was living outside the Hijaz, as some modern critics have opined. All historical records available show that Muhammad had made only three trips outside Mecca before his Prophethood: At the age of 9 he accompanied his mother to Medina. Between the age of 9 and 12, he accompanied his uncle Abu-Talib on a business trip to Syria. At the age of 25 he led Khadija’s Caravan to Syria. It is highly imaginary to assume that the Quran, a long term revelation that includes interactive passages with its addressees, where revelation answers a specific theological, social, economical etc matter, resulted from the occasional chats and meetings with the Christians or Jews from any of the above three trips. It is no less imaginary to assume there was any meaningful contact and religious dialogue between him and anyone, like Bahira, that led to the development of any of the Quran's intricately well knit discourse on any of the Christian themes and figures, conveniently discarding all the historical blunders and improbabilities of both canonical and apocryphal scriptures that allegedly were the subjects of discussion. And which testimonies are there to corroborate the conspiracy claim? Who witnessed the exchange and why did that private teacher equally recognize the prophet hood of Muhammad? Among the reasons why such conspiracy, and other similar false beliefs and revisionist ideas perdure despite the presence of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, is that the authors of these theories, and their supporters, find comfort in the feeling that at least a few propositions among many have some shade of truth in them, and that they receive enough approval by a certain public. Developmental psychologists have found that these 2 factors had a great impact on people's sense of self-certainty; the more one is convinced of knowing something, even though he doesnt, the less likely he will be curious enough to explore the topic further, failing to learn how little he actually knows. This way people remain stuck in their belief and thus will keep repeating it.
The Prophet's enemies kept a close watch on him, trying hard to prove him a liar. They could not point out even a single instance when the Prophet may have had a secret encounter. Tribal life in the desert was very open making it very hard to have regular secret meetings without being noticed. That is why the prophet's critics, even as reported in the Quran, would point to various suspects that were living in everyone's plain sight, although they could not prove any of their claims and neither did these individuals ever agree with these calumnies. And yet these intellectually bankrupt individuals of the past and today want to come and argue that the most intricate of human discourses came to be through occasional chatters and hearsay around a camp fire.
The Prophet did have religious discussions with the Jews and Christians but they took place in Medina more than 13 years after the revelation of the Quran had started. And they certainly werent going on in secret. The objective was to point their moral and spiritual errors as well as warn them of the consequences of their persistence in deviation. He met them as a teacher, not a student. Several of these Jews and Christians later embraced Islam, including some of their most learned figures. It should also be noted that the vast majority of verses relating the history of past prophets were revealed in Mecca, before these interactions with the people of the book occured. What insignificant Judeo-Christian community was the prophet interested in appeasing at point, as sometimes suggested by the mischievious critics? His relatives who surrounded him never questioned his truthfulness instead they gave their wealth and lives for his cause, contrary to some previous prophets, such as Jesus who was rejected and treated as a madman by his closest circle. The prophet Ibrahim himself was rejected by his father who almost stoned him 19:46.
His availability, his openness for inquiries and visits was such that towards an advanced stage of the prophetic mission, revelation came down to regulate the manners of those seeking to visit him, including spending in charity at first, as well as announcing themselves prior to entering his private quarters where his wives resided. The intricate manner in which his followers, in and out of the household, observed, memorized and safeguarded every aspect of his life, everyday and in all situations further dwarfs this already untenable proposition. So, because that idea of him having secret meetings was weak, his enemies instead resorted to character assassination. They resorted to all sorts of calumnies the likes of which previous prophets were victims of, including being a liar, sorcerer or a madman demon possessed.
The Quran would then plainly challenge them; if it is something man made then, with all their resources, including the riches they tried bribing the prophet himself with, the availability of masters of eloquence the likes of which the Arab world has rarely seen since then, in addition to all supposed teachers of his, they should be able to respond to the challenge without much difficulty. But the rest is history. To this day, the enemies of Islam have been conjecturing just as they had always been, trying hard to uncover the sources of the Quran. They certainly did and will continue pointing to a plethora of potential human, textual, traditional candidates. On the surface, these sources seem believable but immediately crumble when one compares them on a macro- as well as micro level to the Quran, let alone if one considers other historical facts the likes of which have been pointed to earlier.
What is undeniable, as is evidenced by the recent trend of studies on the Quranic engagement with previous traditions, is that the Quran shows a very high degree of knowledge of Judaeo-Christian tradition, written and oral, canonized or not, factual or folklore, whether restricted to the religious elite or common among the layman. Such intricate awareness is in fact among the fundamental arguments the Quran uses in support of the divine inspiration of the messenger, the gentile, unschooled Arab, a man highly unlikely to have possessed such vast array of information, let alone able to assemble the details in the form of eloquent speech, whose life whether before or after his prophethood, was known and scrutinized from every angle, day and night, by his friends, family and foes.
It is interesting however that we do read in the ahadith of a man appearing out of nowhere on several occasions in the life of the prophet and the community. Including to teach the prophet and his followers, publicly, the daily prayers, as well as to command him and the Muslim soldiers, to besiege the treacherous tribe of Bani Qurayza. These are not trivial issues, whether from the point of view of the religion, or the life of the community, showing that the prophet, although the uncontested leader of his people, was not acting from his own accord in essential matters. The ahadith relate several other encounters with the same man, unknown to the closest companions, appearing in unlikely circumstances among the people, then disappearing, and always in slightly different physical shape. He would be identified as the angel Jibril whenever the people inquired to the prophet. This "man" was around the prophet and the community from the very beginning, as the prophet was taught the first revelation, to other instances where the companions witnessed him teaching the Quran to the prophet, to when they saw him visit the prophet when he became sick. In terms of resemblance, the prophet likened him to a companion named Dihya. Someone else once confused him with Dihya too. Dihya as a side note, was not influential in the community in any way, even after the prophet's death did not attain to any leading position, neither was he among the closest companions whose decisions were considered by the prophet, nor was he knowledgeable so as to contribute to the Quran. Despite this closeness of interaction, none among the community was able to get a hold of the mysterious visitor, or could interact with him once the purposes of his visits were over. Medina's population at the time was around 20.000, the type of social life was very open and each individual had a very large network of friends and kinsfolk. It would have been impossible for this man to escape the people's grasp, let alone the numerous hypocrites who were always on the lookout to discredit the prophet, had he been known or been living in or anywhere near Medina. Other appearances were observed during battles, with men dressed as the occasional visitor of the prophet was
"Narrated Sa`d: On the day of the battle of Uhud, on the right and on the left of the Prophet were two men wearing white clothes, and I had neither seen them before, nor did I see them afterwards".
In answer to the video "Quran and Mysticism: "Bow Down Before Adam!""
This Book of the cave of Treasures, is predated by another book the "conflict of Adam and Eve". Both works are based on an earlier unknown source, so right from the get go, there is a problem in claiming that the Quran finds its source in one of these 2 traditions. Simply because, the "source" could very well be the same lost one that inspired these 2 traditions or even an altogether different original source that gave birth to all potential later versions. That original might be the tradition directly connected to Adam himself and transmitted down through time. Or it might be the same divine source that inspired it to a prophet of God who transmitted it among his people, this same divine source later revived the story through another individual down the line of prophethood, the prophet Muhammad.
Another possibility is that this apocryphal writing was influenced by contact with Islamic teachings, because its textual boundaries was not closed until the 8th century. In the late 7th century, Anastasius of Sinai makes a deragotary reference to the Quranic story of Iblis refusing to prostrate to Adam as "the myth of the Hellenes and the Arabs". He makes no allusion to the Christian apocryphal tradition.
So in these non-canonical books we see a superficial parallel with the Quranic account of creation, more particularily on the issue of Satan (the Quran only says Iblis) refusal to prostrate to Adam. Although the Quranic intricacies, fully loaded with meaning, from sura to sura and verse to verse are absent from the apocryphal texts, the most prominent difference is that in the Quran, the divine command to prostrate to Adam was to demonstrate the addressees' obedience to God while in the Christian text it is to worship God's image, ie Christ. In fact the whole account in these Christian traditions revolve around typical Christological concepts, Jesus' divinity, his sonship, salvation from sin and humanity's cursed nature.
These themes are so blatant, running throughout the whole storyline that one wonders how these stealthy Quran authors managed to create a parallel account with its peculiar ethical-spiritual implications, without erroneously integrating any of the corrupt christological notions, in all the places where the story is told and retold.
And once more, similarities doesnt entail borrowing. One first has to establish that the supposed (illiterate) author of the Quran had access to the similarities. One then has to explain how he cherry picked among a long list of books and traditions, besides other philosophies and thought systems, to form a well knit, flawlessly intricate narrative in its literary form that left the masters of eloquence of the time dumbfounded, as well as depth of contents that has not finished unravelling its subtleties.
Why wasnt the source ever exposed nor came out to denounce him, leaving him reap the fruits of their labor. How wasnt this source detected given the largely exposed lifestyle of the time, the open circumstances in which the prophet lived and received revelation, as well as many other factors, not the least being that the Quran never claims to be relating something unknown in that particular narrative, repeatedly says it is a revelation in a long tradition of revelations.
This means the superficial similarities might be remnants of revealed truths that eventually found their way into these apocrypha. In those writings from which the Quran supposedly draws, one can many times see how the superficial similarities are poorly weaved into the fabric of the story. The apocryphal writer, or his source, was aware of certain elements of the story but poorly integrated them in the whole account.
This is precisely why the Quran refers to itself as the Muhaymin (Guardian), when talking about the textual and oral traditions contemporaries to it. It points out major mistakes in them, filters the Truth from falsehood
21:24"this is the reminder of those with me and the reminder of those before me".
The Quran confirming the past scriptures, as well as any tradition, oral or written, in which divine truths still remain 2:41, means that the principles taught by Muhammad come from a common source, which Muslims believe is the Source of creation, and can be found throughout these textual and oral traditions. This is pointed to in the common phrase "musaddiqan lima bayna yadahi". With the passage of time these traditions were burdenned with additions, suffered from corruption and/or neglectful transmission. The Quran then acts as a criterion that distinguishes truth from falsehood.
Therefore, and for argument's sake, to Muslims, it is irrelevant whether a story bearing similarities with a Quranic passage was even in circulation during and before Islam. It is even less relevant to Muslims whether the similarities were cannonized in the Bible or not. By what standard is the current Bible canon more reliable than the apocrypha? And what proof is there that the unknown Bible compilers rejected these traditions based on these points common to the Quran? Does the current Bible canon even claim to relate every single aspect of the life of its Biblical characters? Is it quiet possible that during the tumultuous process of transmission of the Bible, more particularily the HB which was lost at least twice as recorded in the Bible itself, some parts of the overall transmitted traditions were retained by the editors charged with reconstituting the lost text, and who reflected their own socio-cultural background in the process? Could they have been Selecting what was appropriate for their storytelling purposes and what was not? Of course from a secular viewpoint, the Quran, as a later text, is irrelevant in determining the authenticity, original versions or actual beliefs of those who originated or penned the previous oral and written traditions, canonized or not. But then so is the NT irrelevant in determining those matters from the HB, just as within the HB itself parts are far removed in time and space from other parts, making certain books insignificant when exploring these matters from earlier or later books. However, as soon as one introduces the divine into the equation, then all groups Jews-Christians-Muslims are equal in their claims as regards the authority of one scripture over another. The only factor from a non-secular view point enhancing one claim over another, would be the group with the most authentic, contradiction-free scripture.
In today's mainstream academia, no Islamicist asserts the Quran was influenced by the textual and oral traditions of its milieu, let alone copies from them. Simply because there is no possibility to know whether the human mind who supposedly authored the text had access to those traditions or understood them. What academics do at most, is present what they see as similarities, without disregarding or minimizing the vast differences. On the other side of the spectrum are Judeo-Christian religious zealots and apologists whose methodology and ideas are vastly inherited from their medieval peers' polemical writings. In order to enforce their untenable, unproven claims of borrowing, they retrospectively cherry pick convenient snippets from within larger stories that have very little to do with the corresponding Quranic passages. Then, not only do they disregard the significant differences loaded with theological meanings, but go on magnifying the tiniest similarities to the maximum so as to serve their paradigm. In the process, they inadvertently attribute to Muhammad an encyclopediac knowledge of texts and traditions, as well as an army of unseen informants from a variety of backgrounds and cultures following him around. This weak methodology can be applied to any thought system so as to build up a case for plagiarism.
The Judeo-christian scriptures themselves relate, through the successive prophets and inspired personalities, different stories that were known to the addressees. This doesnt mean their statements were inspired by these traditions floating around. Rather, the common truths found between these traditions, and the statements of the prophets come from God. There is a myriad of similarities between the HB and stories, texts, inscriptions, including the Ugaritic mention of Adam and Eve, the Mesopotamian myth of Gilgamesh where he is cheated of immortality by a snake who eats a plant (had Gilgamesh eaten it, it would have made him immortal. The elements are the same but play out differently). There are other such myths circulating in Babylon where the Israelites spent a long time in exile, of a hero tricked out of immortality through the device of a plant/food. One could extend the parallelism with the laws of Hammurabi, or the global flood, among many examples, all predating Moses' supposed writing of the Torah. Some of these similarities might be due, as in the Quran, to being remnants of ancient truths partially preserved by these different cultures. But other biblical parallels with predating writings and traditions obviously are copies of unsophisticated legends floating in the region. The oldest and original account of creation in the Bible isnt found in Genesis but in Isaiah, Job or the Psalms. God in these crude stories divides the seas and fights off aquatic monsters. The same is found in the Ugaritic tablets and in a language very similar to Hebrew, with the myth that creation began when the storm god Baal vanquishing the god of the sea Yam and his sea monster-serpent-dragon helpers. Isa27:1 has a very close wording to what a Canaanite says about Baal
"When you killed Litan, the fleeing serpent, annihilated the twisty serpent, the potentate with seven heads".
One shouldnt forget that the canonization of the Bible was a long and controversial process, influenced by men with doctrinal bias, and that the current Biblical text is far from being a valid criterion of what truly constitutes divine knowledge from purely human invention.
In answer to the video "Quran and Mysticism: "Bow Down Before Adam!""
The harmonious, consistent repetitions of various topics in the Quran are primarly meant to stress some important pillars of belief
25:50"And certainly We have repeated this to them that they may be mindful, but the greater number of men do not consent to aught except denying".
The first objective of that literary feature is thus enhancing man's remembrance of Allah 39:23. It also is a way of explaining itself
17:41"We have explained (things) in various (ways) in this Quran".
According to the Quran therefore, its master exegetist is none but the Book itself, explaining itself 75:19,16:89. The Prophet is its second exegetist and interpreter 3:164,16:44,62:2. The Quran being primarily self-explanatory establishes from the onset 2 conditions for its proper understanding; the importance of considering the context of a verse and the fact that the Book is one integral whole; every verse and sentence has an intimate bearing on other verses and sentences, all of them clarifying and amplifying one another. Consequently, its real meaning can be grasped only if we correlate every one of its statements with what has been stated elsewhere in a different context. A full picture of its ideas can be appreciated by means of cross-references.
Allah warns the prophet, in the context of exposing the followers of previous scriptures for their transgressions, not to withhold anything of what he is commanded to convey, or else it would be as if he did not convey the entirety of the message from beginning to end
5:67"O Messenger, announce that which has been revealed to you from your Lord, and if you do not, then you have not conveyed His message. And Allah will protect you from the people. Indeed, Allah does not guide the disbelieving people".
This holistic approach was considered by the earliest Quran scholars, down to the contemporary ones. This means the Quran and its meaning isnt locked to the common man's comprehension, provided it is effectively pondered upon. Al-Tabari for example states that the Quran has 3 kinds of material: that which is only known to God, but irrelevant to hermeneutics, that which only the Prophet could explain, but extremely marginal, and that which any knowledgeable person of Arabic language can explain, practically all of the Quran. Al-Tabari included a chapter even refuting the position of those who claimed that only the Prophet can interpret the Quran.
As a side note, the tafsir section in Bukhari includes many interpretations without isnad, and that are not even those of Muhammad, his Companions, or his Followers.
Some Quranic passages are repeated word for word, in the case of prayers or general pillars of faith but in story telling, the repetitions are rarely if ever the same. This is because in the Quran when it comes to reminding of past narratives and anecdotes, the objective isnt dry storytelling and genealogies as in most of the Bible where one can easily and quickly lose track of names, places and other details.
These little details, if omitted wouldn't make humanity miss out on anything in terms of guidance, and in fact confuse the reader and distract his attention to trivial matters. The Quran is not a historical record or dry, impartial document: it is argumentative and impactful to get people to believe and actively reform themselves and their environment. Its powerful statements are in an intellectual, spiritual and emotional language that every culture across time and space can appreciate. The Quran's objective isnt story telling, but "message telling" and maximizing its audience's attention to the precept(s) of the story. We thus find in the Quran that most of the characters recognizable through their Biblical counterparts have their stories retold without necessary links and in disconnected episodes. As a result, they largely lose their temporal and spatial dimensions, thus perfectly fitting into the Quranic moral style of narrative. The Quran therefore is not a story book in a beginning to end format, it is a never ending cyclical experience. Like the word or speech of God, it has no beginning or end.
Muslims will not be asked on the Day of Judgment the details of the people of the cave or how Noah's flood occurred, how many generations passed between a person and another, the names in a genealogy or whether they memorized the names of people in the Quran. They will be questioned as to how they responded to the lessons from the different incidents and stories related in the Quran. Thus to focus on the message, the Quran injects the passage of a well-known story, whenever the larger context a sura requires it. And when it does so, it only puts the details of that story that are relevant to that specific context.
That is why one sees variations in repetitions, but never contradictions. The only exception to that style of narrative is the story of the prophet Joseph/Yusuf which takes the form of a beginning to end narrative in one place, and a highly eloquent, intricate one at that.
Those unable to appreciate that Quranic style speak of contradictory, or incomplete repetitions. This is because first and foremost they approach the Quranic text with the above Biblical paradigm in mind; the Quran, instead of being read on its own is seen as a garbled version of multiple Judeo-Christian sources. If, however, the text is approached according to its own thematic unities, its lack of historical detail and absence of chronological order become unproblematic. And this is the prevalent approach among western scholarship nowadays. The second common problem for those reading the text occurs when they are unable to connect the different repetitions properly among one another and fail to grasp the manner in which each repetition fits in the context of a particular sura. This a side note isnt circular reasoning as it doesnt presume the notion of textual coherence. It is textual coherence that objectively establishes itself, through consistent repetitions, recurrence of similar themes and notions in different contexts. These repetitions always retain a core meaning, and are always thematically correlated with similar passages in other suras, like conversations and dialogues between the suras.
The brilliant Pakistani scholar Islahi called the recurrence of themes in several suras "complementarity".
A topic which appears at a place reappears in another background and context where the initially hidden meaning becomes quite apparent because the meaning is suited to be developed in that particular context. Teachings, precepts, stories or anecdotes are mentioned in various styles and with different aspects in different contexts and in numerous backgrounds so that if at one place a reader is not fully able to understand something, he can grasp it fully at another place, and if at one place an argument is not fully appreciated, he can comprehend it in the background of a different context. If an element within a story is only meaningful in a specific context, and that in the course of revelation, that specific context does not reappear in a manner so as to necessitate the repetition of that element from within the story, then the element or detail is omitted.
Sometimes an incident is repeated tersely or partly in order to remind the audience and reader of the overall message that is relevant to a particular context, without recalling it of every precise details.
Sometimes an incident is repeated tersely or partly in order to remind the audience and/or reader of the overall message that is relevant to a particular context, without recalling it of every precise details.
Sometimes a story is repeated by omitting some previously mentioned details in order to reveal some new elements, this way keeping the story brief and to the point, without communicating too much information at once. When it relates the same event at different places it sometimes quotes different dialogues between different protagonists hence the variation in wordings. As also said, this variation is also due to the importance of giving different angles to the same dialogue or incident that is relevant to the context within the sura.
Sometimes the characters might also repeat themselves slightly differently from amazement or in the case of messengers quoted with variations it is because during their career they repeated themselves obviously differently at different times.
The Quran, using these literary devices and many others, explains itself
7:58"As such we manage the signs to people who are grateful"
54:22"And certainly We have made the Quran easy for remembrance, but is there anyone who will mind?".
Another purpose of this style being to strengthen the Prophet in the face of various forms of denial and obstinacy from his opponents at different times. The form of the story would echo a situation similar to that which the Prophet was facing.
Some truths are repeated to emphasize their importance and fix them in the minds of the believers. Things such as the oneness of God, repeated more than 10 times in certain pages, or the unavoidable day of resurrection etc. These are things that even if repeated a million times, it still would not be a waste of time or words. The Quran constantly draws attention to those matters both explicitly or allusively because they are realities like the air we breath, which we always need and that require renewal, this way their reiterations becomes a Quranic grace.
What is remarkable from a linguistic perspective is that the Quran was uttered publicly, live and as a speech, which prevents any type of editing and yet it forms one incredibly well knit whole, from verse to verse, paragraph to paragraph, sura to sura. If we take the example of sura baqara, the longest of all and revealed over the course of 10 years while other suras were being simultaneously revealed, it is structured in an interconnected manner allowing it to be thematically structured in many different ways.
This is a vast field of Quranic studies, with many sub-branches, studied by both Muslims and non-Muslim scholars; the interconnection between suras, passages, verses, words and even letters and how the whole thing remarkably fits together. The idea of the Quran being a dull, boring or incomprehensible repetitive book is a discredited proposition, not only by the scholars of Islam all throughout their exegetical works spanning centuries, but also more recently by non-Muslims who have been doing, and keep on doing, a remarkable job at unveiling the intricate connections of the text, from verse to another, paragraph to paragraph and sura to sura. See Norman Brown's work on sura 18 for instance. That weak assertion is only still circulating among uneducated critics of Islam, and missionaries. For most of modern Islamicists, the Quran has to be approached as a text on its own, with its own internal coherence to be properly understood. So long as explanations to its passages are sought from the perspective of its alleged, ellusive and countless proposed sources, the Quran will remain an obscure book for those approaching it.
Here is just one of the thematical structuring of sura Baqara, in a symetrical construction called ring structure;
- 1st subject from v1-20 faith vs unbelief/Last subject v285-6 dua about belief-hypocrisy-disbelief.
- 2nd subject from v21-39 God's creation and knowledge/2nd subject from down God's creation and knowledge v254-284
- 3rd topic v40-103 the Israelites receive the law/3rd subject from down from down about the laws given to Muslims v178-253
- 4th subject Ibrahim faces tests v104-141/4th one from down Ibrahim's nation, the Ishmaelites are tested v153-177
- middle section culminates with the new direction of prayer, the Kaaba symbolizing that new nation and its new law
And all this symmetrical ring structure leads to the statement of the Muslims having been made the ummatan wasata/balanced nation, a statement located in the center of a sura composed of 286 verses, at exactly verse 143. Every single Quranic sura on its own forms, like baqara, a cohesive argument.
Also, because many of its passages can be read through the lens of another passage from within the sura, other analysts have approached its structuring in a pericope.
For example, the story of Adam in sura Baqara pericopes throughout the sura. The Israelites were told to enter a town and enjoy its sustenance v58 similarly to the instructions previously given to Adam and his spouse upon entering the garden v35. But just as Adam and his spouse werent content with what they were given, the Israelites began grumbling for the sustenance they had in captivity v61. And just as Adam and his spouse found their Lord forgiving once they repented, some of the Israelites were eventually forgiven for their worshipping the calf and desisting prior to Moses' return v54.
