Issue 24
Issue 24 [@ 19:40]: Robert Spencer – “It is very important to understand the Quran is not arranged chronologically but arranged on simply on the basis of longest chapter to the shortest.”
Rebuttal 24: Robert Spencer is wrong that Quran is “arranged on simply the basis of longest chapter to the shortest.” The following is a listing of number of verses in each of the Surah (chapter) in Quran. Read the table below horizontally from top-left to bottom-right e.g. Surah #1 has 7 verses, Surah #2 has 286 verses….the last Surah #114 has 6 verses:
7 286 200 176 120 165 206 75 129 109 123 111 43 52 99 128 111 110 98 135 112 78 118 64 77 227 93 88 69 60 34 30 73 54 45 83 182 88 75 85 54 53 89 59 37 35 38 29 18 45 60 49 62 55 78 96 29 22 24 13 14 11 11 18 12 12 30 52 52 44 28 28 20 56 40 31 50 40 46 42 29 19 36 25 22 17 19 26 30 20 15 21 11 8 8 19 5 8 8 11 11 8 3 9 5 4 7 3 6 3 5 4 5 6
The main body of Quran in terms of number of verses per Surah is skewed towards right in distribution, but so what? If that is the Divine Design, then so be it. Message of Quran is across the board pristine, relevant and for uplift of humanity. It is just one more bogus attempt to distract away from the content of Quran. Such kind of arguments are frivolous attempt by the movie makers to use fill-in arguments to lengthen the movie.
Mr Robert Spencer – What is your point? What is so “important” in your observation? What’s wrong with current arrangement? Should Quran be alphabetical? Should it be arranged in reverse order? These Islam haters will try to find any nonsensical reason to criticize. A very classical bean counter’s logic.
Earlier it was Walid Shoebat who in his infinite wisdom tried to breakdown Quran into geographical location of revelation i.e. Makiyyah and Madinyyah Surahs, which was fully answered in Rebuttal 17. Now Spencer is trying another tack by citing length of Surahs. In the next Issue 25, Robert Trifkovic will re-emphasize the abrogation theory by dividing Quran on tolerant and intolerant lines. None of them have been able to build a case upon the content of Quran. Their scholarship is pathetic. Their arguments are like sand which slips out from within their fingers with nothing but dust remaining in their palms. These are centuries old objections. Nothing original, nothing smart. These objections have been asked, answered and dispensed with by Quran fifteen hundreds years ago:
25:32. And those who disbelieve say, `Why has not (the whole of) the Qur’ân been revealed to him all at once? (But We have revealed it) in this manner (- piece by piece out of necessity). And (in spite of the fact that it has not been revealed all at once,) We have arranged it in an excellent (form and order of) arrangement (and free of all contradictions) so that We may thereby lend strength to your heart.
25:33. They bring you no parable (by way of an objection) but We have provided you with the true fact and perfect interpretation (of it, in answer to the objection beforehand).
References:
Quran Surah Statistics
Holy Quran – Nooruddin
From ikram:
If Robert Spencer can be aghast by – “It is very important to understand the Quran is not arranged chronologically but arranged on simply the basis of longest chapter to the shortest” then it could be reasonably implied that he might also be disgusted by – “It is very important to understand that any Majestic Tree is not arranged chronologically but arranged on simply the basis of longest branches to the shortest.” He will raise an objection no matter what.
For Muslims, both the Quran and the trees have Divine design to them and there is no harm in either of the designs. But for Robert Spencer, his ideal world will have trees with longest and heaviest branches on the top and the shortest and lightest branches at the bottom. Robert Spencer go figure for yourself the basis of your objections against the design, structure, content and message of Quran.