This is a guest post by J J Muhammed
Last Sunday, the BBC hosted an edition of The Big Questions that examined arguments for and against the existence of God. Being an agnostic myself, I found the arguments presented by the ‘for’ side extremely weak and self-contradictory. Even more off-putting was the arrogant and smug manner in which certain individuals presented their arguments, especially the Middle Eastern sounding Muslim chap and Adam Deen. Both of these individuals touched upon the oft-repeated fallacy that the Quran must be the word of God since it contains no errors.
This is a very popular argument used by Muslim preachers who generally rely on audience’s ignorance of the Quran to win the argument. They also have a natural advantage in that people are fearful of criticising Islam and are therefore often reluctant to enter into the debate. It is also an argument that I often made when I was a young Muslim and am therefore very familiar with it.
It is, however, deeply flawed. The Quran not only contains many scientific and historical errors, there is also strong evidence to suggest that it was been changed, altered and authored by more than one source.
Most Muslims when faced with these contradictions will seek out an apologists attempt to answer them. They will post a link to said apologist and say ‘see, these have been dealt with’. What they won’t do is ask themselves, ‘how credible are these explanations’? Technically any contradiction is any ancient book from the Middle East can be explained away through the use or creative language interpretation, metaphors and other sophisms. But these explanations are rarely credible or convincing to the neutral observer yet appease believers due to their confirmation bias.
Some of these explanations rely on logic such as given in this example. If you were told ‘go to your home’, you would most likely interpret that as meaning going to your physical address where you reside. However, the word ‘home’ could also refer to a safe place and it could refer to somewhere you feel comfortable. Yet no sensible person would interpret ‘go to your home’ as meaning find a safe place or go to somewhere where you feel comfortable. Now that is the kind of fanciful interpretation words and phrases in the Quran are given by Muslim apologists who deploy mind-bending logic to preserve their holy book.
In the interests of time and your patience, I will limit myself to providing four such Quranic contradictions. I have heard Muslim attempts to explain away all of the below contradictions on numerous occasions, yet most of their explanations are so ridiculous that they don’t even deserve referencing.
Contradiction 1
The Quran states:
The Jews call Ezra a son of God, and the Christians call the Christ a son of God. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. God’s curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!
[Quran 9:30]
Putting aside the harsh and uncouth tone of the above verse, the content is simply incorrect. No Jews have ever claimed that Ezra was the son of God. You will not be able to find a single document or Jewish reference that makes this claim. Even if there was an obscure and minority sect in 7th century Arabia that did make this bizarre claim, it is hardly accurate to call them ‘the Jews’ without further clarification. That is a bit like saying ‘The Muslims believe that Ghulam Mirza Ahmed was a Messiah’. If someone made that statement, Muslims would be the first to challenge it and quite rightly so.
Contradiction 2
The Quran States:
So let man consider from what he is created. He is created from a gushing fluid that issued from between the loins and ribs. (Quran: 86, 5-7)
The gushing fluid, semen, is not issued from between the loins and the ribs. It is created in the testicles and issues from the tip of the penis. There have been many Muslim attempts to re-interpret this verse in light of modern science. Most of these attempt to provide creative interpretations for the words ‘Sulb’ (backbone) and ‘Tara’ib’ (ribs). Apologists claim that sulb refers to the erect penis whilst Tara’ib refers to the sexual areas of a woman. However, you will never find these words being give those interpretations in any credible Arabic dictionary and there are no other examples in Islamic sources of these words being used to mean sexual areas of the man or woman.
Futhermore, all Tafsirs (commentaries) from Ibn Kathir onwards have interpreted sulb and Tara’ib as meaning ribs and backbone. Alternative interpretations have only been advanced very recently when this contradiction was pointed out. Whatever, you make of this mess, pardon the pun, you can’t disagree that the Quran is anything but vague, misleading, opaque and thus a poor guide or reference.
Contradiction 3
The Quran states:
Allah is He who raised the heavens without any pillars that you can see; is firmly established on the throne; He has subjected the sun and the moon! Each one runs for a term appointed. He regulates the matter, explaining the signs in detail, so you can be certain of meeting with your Lord. (Quran 13:2)
And
Don’t you see that Allah merges night into day and he merges day into night and he has subjected the sun, and the moon each running its course for a term appointed. And Allah is aware of what you do. (Quran 31:29)
Every single tafsir (commentary) of the Quran written prior to the 20th century also supports this view, as did almost all Muslim scientists of all the past. In fact even some Muslims defend this view today along with many who still believe the earth is flat, since that what the Quran suggests in many verses.
Modern apologists have claimed that the since the Sun does actually have an orbit around the Milky Way, the verse is technically correct. However, this far-fetched interpretation fails to take into account the fact that the sun’s orbit takes roughly 226 Million years. In the verse, God is supposed trying to convince mankind of his majesty and asking them ‘don’t you see’ and referring to clearly observable phenomenon. The orbit of the sun is not observable by humans and therefore this explanation makes absolutely no sense unless you are a believer who is desperate to find any explanation.
Contradiction 4
The Quran states:
And of every thing We have created pairs: That ye may receive instruction. (Quran: 51:49)
Not every creature procreates or reproduces through male and female sexual relationship. The whiptail lizard in the U.S. Southwest, Mexico, and South America consists only of females who reproduce by parthenogenesis. The Qur’anic Allah does not know anything about the biological process by which new individual organisms are produced. Today we know you can find an organism which creates a genetically-similar or identical copy of itself without a contribution of genetic material from another individual. There are also hermaphrodites.
So there you have it. There are of course, many other such contradictions but the above should suffice to bury the claim that the Quran is inimitable.
34 Comments
For those that like reading, here is the contents of a Cambridge debate on the same with very interesting historical analysis on the said book with contemporary observations pointing to a different authorship than the assumed.
http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/debate/part1.htm#A
Invaluable link, thanks FiddlerbyHalf
— T. Noldeke
Effendi writes
These contradictions aren’t work of his research and imaginations…. they are work of Christians, who came up with these. Probably got tired with Muslims pointing out obvious contradictions of the Bible.
They have several prominent websites. I am well versed in all of these poor arguments.
——————————————–
The authors makes the point that Muslims will not answer these – but point to others as answer. But none of these so called contradictions are his original work.
——————————————–
Contradiction 1
- is a bizarre one to point out. Ezra is prominent Jewish figure – who did much to establish central position of Jewish law and revive the religion and form the Jews into a viable community.
Arabia was at the time the home for Jews. Prophet Muhammad was in contact with Jews very early from his life and throughout his life. This is well documented. He had knowledge of places from Syria to Ethiopia. Historical Muslims evidence shows …. even during his time he met with people as far afield as Sindh – an area in modern day Pakistan.
Even if Prophet Muhammad [or someone else as the author alleges] has written this historical inaccuracy then there had to be immediate acceptance else it would have been rejected straight away.
Neither was Quran rejected for this immediately or for centuries later. Else there would be Jewish records stretching back to this as being an inaccuracy. Here the author has not presented anything new at all. As the above views are but copy and paste from Christian sites.
Although most sources that remain are Muslim. But the old religions did not have an answer for Quran. It is the book whose story of Jesus Christ fell the King of Ethiopia – A Christian king.
This “contradiction” is a gotcha type. Neither the author has much historical data and sources and neither at the moment have I.
But I am completely willing to look into this further. Hence I give out my email address.
mohamin007@aol.com
However,
G. D. Newby, A History Of The Jews Of Arabia, 1988, University Of South Carolina Press.
Notes that at the advent of Islam – Jews of Arabia were involved in mystical speculation as well as anthromorphizing and worshiping an angel.
Muslims sources point out that there were communities of Jews that worshiped Ezra. Especially in Yemen.
There is evidence that it is Samaritan view that Jews worshiped Ezra.
—————
“No Jews have ever claimed that Ezra was the son of God. You will not be able to find a single document or Jewish reference that makes this claim. Even if there was an obscure and minority sect in 7th century Arabia that did make this bizarre claim, it is hardly accurate to call them ‘the Jews’ without further clarification.”
” That is a bit like saying ‘The Muslims believe that Ghulam Mirza Ahmed was a Messiah’.”
This analogy does not work. Muslims during the Qadiani times are numerous. Jews even today is a relatively small religion. It considers itself persecuted and a diaspora for thousands of years. In the time of Quran it was split into small factions all across Arabia.
If you find evidence of Arabian Jews worshiping Ezra – then in relative terms – proportionally there is a great difference between number of
Qadiani do not even make 1% of Muslims. Where as a community of Jews in Arabia – even small would have an higher percentage.
———–
It is not purely Jewish references that will be taken into account. Dubious pasts are hardly highlighted [Trust me on this - I am a Muslim]. Christian, Muslim and other sources weight in as well.
———-
Refuting 1 allegation has took me this long. And I have not even started. As I say… this need to be properly looked at. Something the author CLEARLY has not done.
———-
Although a futile task… But i can easily point to source where this so called allegation has arisen from. For an “agnostic” to borrow and paste rehashed Christian arguments is not very truthful at all.
Most Muslims when faced with these contradictions will seek out an apologists attempt to answer them. They will post a link to said apologist and say ‘see, these have been dealt with’. What they won’t do is ask themselves, ‘how credible are these explanations’? Technically any contradiction is any ancient book from the Middle East can be explained away through the use or creative language interpretation, metaphors and other sophisms. But these explanations are rarely credible or convincing to the neutral observer yet appease believers due to their confirmation bias.
Yet all the arguments mentioned by the author are rehashed from Christian sites. And they are pretty petty supposed “contradictions”.
Author also seems to have trouble with difference the word “Contradiction” and “Inaccurate”.
If you are goign to copy and paste…. at least verify what you are posting as the gospel truth.
Amin’s wishy washy responses confirms everything J J Muhammed has written in this article.
Again contradiction Number 3 is copied from works of Christians – who were on the back to come up with ANY contradiction at all costs. Especially after Ahmad Deedat single-handedly began ravishing Christian Missionaries in Africa.
The author lauds it over the Muslims that they point to Apologetics for answers… yet he unashamedly copies from clearly biased Christian source … in the guise of secularism and alludes to original research.
…. with many who still believe the earth is flat, since that what the Quran suggests in many verses.
The author didn’t bother to mention any such verses. As they all do not refer to as earth being flat. On this issue even the Tafsirs more or less have it correct. DahaHa – دحها for example means to level or roll something out.
Spherical Earth as an idea was old hat even when Muslim came to power.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth#Islamic_world
————————————————————————————————-
Every single tafsir (commentary) of the Quran written prior to the 20th century also supports this view, as did almost all Muslim scientists of all the past.
Here again Muslims scholars were truthful. This – they interpreted this more or less according to Science…. then criticized it according to Science.
Interesting to note is that re-interpretation still only rely on the scope of meaning according to the original word – and not completely re-invent new terminologies.
This clearly shows … where the fault lies. How is it that Muslims are being blamed from the Quran? As they claim never to have written the book.
In them days Muslims were interested in Science and good at it. These days…. the less said the better.
————————————————————————————————-
Modern apologists have claimed that the since the Sun does actually have an orbit around the Milky Way, the verse is technically correct. However, this far-fetched interpretation fails to take into account the fact that the sun’s orbit takes roughly 226 Million years. In the verse, God is supposed trying to convince mankind of his majesty and asking them ‘don’t you see’ and referring to clearly observable phenomenon. The orbit of the sun is not observable by humans and therefore this explanation makes absolutely no sense unless you are a believer who is desperate to find any explanation.
Here the author himself has proved his own contradiction – which he should have called “inaccuracy” – to be wrong. So the sun DOES have its orbit.
And why should it be human observable? Although it was human detectable. Surely the God who created the universe … would have known about sun orbit. No matter how many years it took.
If it was question of simply “observable phenomena” then Muslims would have interpreted this long as such. But they didn’t. Even the author points to this. So to label this as only ‘clearly’ observable phenomena is inaccurate.
And again Muslims Commentators – who were not well versed in science ould be expected to struggle – Or would have interpreted according to the science available at the time.
This is an extremely bizarre view… and wholly inaccurate and biased and wrong viewpoint to take. It is illogical.
———————————————————————————————
This observation beggars belief
“Amin’s wishy washy responses confirms everything J J Muhammed has written in this article.”
Asserting something as “Wish Washy” is the easy bit…. elaborating on it is the key.
The person expressing this view… was going to say this no matter what. But the devil is in the detail.
I self congratulate myself. The points stand firm. The above comment is a testimony to that.
Your only contention is that the ideas of the author have been sourced from “Christian sites”. Even if this were true, it’s not exactly the rebuttal you think it is.
Amin – I take your point that there is a distinction between a contradiction and an inaccuracy but the other points you raise are bizarre. Simply attributing these errors to Christian websites is neither here nor there, it doesn’t say anything about their credibility.
With regards to the Ezra point, saying that this verse would have been rejected at the time if it wasn’t true can be applied to any historical error in the Bible, Torah or any other holy book. It’s a completely mute point. Also, since Muslims believe the Quran is the initimable and unchanged word of God, they couldn’t exactly challenge it or take verses out. Instead they have to do what you are doing, contort reality to fit the Qurans inaccuracies or rely on far-fetched creative interpretations.
Furthermore, there are Jewish reference to this verse which talk about how completely inaccurate and slanderous it is. The fact remains, even if there was a minority Jewish sect that held this view, it is very inaccurate of the Quran to say ‘the Jews’ believe this.
The whole point about the verse which talks about the Sun and Moon having orbits is the Quran is trying to convince its 7th century readers that is God exists by pointing to wonders which the naked eye can observe in very basic societies. Hence, the references to the Moon, the rain, night and day, fruit and trees etc. It is simply bizarre to interpret this verse as refering to the Suns orbit around the milky way since to no human can observe that with the naked eye and it would not be a credible proof. It is far more likely, that the Quran was referencing a geo-centric universe concept this is blatantly referred to in many ahadith.
Your only contention is that the ideas of the author have been sourced from “Christian sites”. Even if this were true, it’s not exactly the rebuttal you think it is.
No it isn’t. I have written a bit more than that. I find it disingenuous of you. Again if all you are going to do is make assertions then why bother. It won’t fool anyone.
Agreed with the author. Interestingly, the entire Quran contains only knowledge that we would expect to be around in ancient Arabia. And for another, how about this one?
They ask thee concerning Dhu al Qarnayn. Say “I will rehearse to you something of his story.” Verily We established his power on earth, and We gave him the ways and the means to all ends. One (such) way he followed, Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water: near it he found a People: “… … …” Then followed he (another) way. Until, when he came to the rising of the sun, he found it rising on a people for whom We had provided no covering protection against the sun. (He left them) as they were: We completely understood what was before him. (18:83-18:91)
The earth does not have “ends”. Moreover, we should all be clear the sun doesn’t set in a “spring of murky water”.
Simply attributing these errors to Christian websites is neither here nor there, it doesn’t say anything about their credibility.
I was attacking the author, when he said:
“Most Muslims when faced with these contradictions will seek out an apologists attempt to answer them. They will post a link to said apologist and say ‘see, these have been dealt with’. What they won’t do is ask themselves, ‘how credible are these explanations’? ”
This alludes what will follow is original research. Yet he pastes re-hashed Christian diatribe. The above has been answered. He did not bring anything new. So it was a point well worth making.
————————————————-
“With regards to the Ezra point, saying that this verse would have been rejected at the time if it wasn’t true can be applied to any historical error in the Bible, Torah or any other holy book.”
Yes …. and Muslims have done precisely that. The Muslims world doesn’t really study comparative religions to the scholarly extent that West does. Many prestigious Western Universities have well funded and active departments studying Islam.
All the author could find was Christian ideas…. and paste them under guise
Yet had the stupidity to attack Muslims for not being original?
What about some academic backing for the above… this author is NOT christian.
Not admitting to using their arguments, I find this to quite devious.
———————————–
“Also, since Muslims believe the Quran is the initimable and unchanged word of God, they couldn’t exactly challenge it or take verses out. Instead they have to do what you are doing, contort reality to fit the Qurans inaccuracies or rely on far-fetched creative interpretations.”
Sorry … this is completely wrong. Could you illustrate my “creative” fiddling. I clearly admit more needs to be done research this. That Christian, Jewish, Muslims and other sources need to be looked at. Again – the author makes assertions, without evidence.
I also point to a few sources as a starting point.
See …. you had this set answer and you applied it – without thinking it through.
————-
“Furthermore, there are Jewish reference to this verse which talk about how completely inaccurate and slanderous it is. The fact remains, even if there was a minority Jewish sect that held this view, it is very inaccurate of the Quran to say ‘the Jews’ believe this.”
Evidence? I allude to this… the correct thing to do would have been to give some backing to that assertion.
Also sizable Jewry was in from of Prophet Muhammad. He had precise and sharp
Also the point Quran makes is more to do with associating partners with God and deviating from the original scriptures. The emphasis clearly is NOT on Judaism.
————–
“The whole point about the verse which talks about the Sun and Moon having orbits is the Quran is trying to convince its 7th century readers that is God exists by pointing to wonders which the naked eye can observe in very basic societies.”
I have dealt with this …. yet you side stepped that … to re-emphasize this point.
Taking stock … for a moment.
These trifles are NOT contradictions.
They are not scientifically inaccurate.
Then just the question of interpretation remains:
“Don’t you see that Allah merges night into day and he merges day into night and he has subjected the sun, and the moon each running its course for a term appointed. And Allah is aware of what you do. (Quran 31:29)
وَسَخَّرَ الشَّمْسَ وَالْقَمَرَ كُلٌّ يَجْرِي إِلى أَجَلٍ مُسَمًّى وَأَنَّ اللَّهَ بِما تَعْمَلُونَ خَبِيرٌ
NOTE:
“He subjected the sun and the moon each moving for a fixed time”
I have left the central verb yaJRI – to move, run, flow, circulate, occur, come to pass – alone.
Else you can re-write the verse as:
“He subjected the sun and the moon each occurring for a fixed time”
See Edward Lane’s Lexicon.
Also – Tafsir Ibn Abi Kahtim seemingly agrees:
“كُلٌّ يَجْرِي إلى أجل مسمى لذلك كله وقت واحد معلوم، لا يعدوه ولا يقصر دونه”
———-
Is more accurate word by word translation. I don’t know about the “its course” that is not meaning of any of the original translation. Classical Arabic is notoriously difficult to translate into English…. and there so some pretty wild translation.
It is clear from reading the visible phenomena is changing of the night and day. Then it talks about Sun and the Moon and their movement for an appointed time. The clear observable phenomena is the coming of the moon at night and the sun at day. The imagery is clear….
وَقَوْلُهُ: {وَسَخَّرَ الشَّمْسَ وَالْقَمَرَ كُلٌّ يَجْرِي إِلَى أَجَلٍ مُسَمًّى} [لقمان: 29] يَقُولُ تَعَالَى ذِكْرُ: وَسَخَّرَ الشَّمْسَ وَالْقَمَرَ لِمَصَالِحِ خَلْقِهِ وَمَنَافِعِهِمْ، {كُلٌّ يَجْرِي} [الرعد: 2] يَقُولُ: كُلُّ ذَلِكَ يَجْرِي بِأَمْرِهِ إِلَى وَقْتٍ مَعْلُومٍ، وَأَجَلٍّ مَحْدُودٍ إِذَا بَلَغَهُ، كُوِّرَتِ الشَّمْسُ وَالْقَمَرُ. وَبِنَحْوِ الَّذِي قُلْنَا فِي ذَلِكَ قَالَ أَهْلُ التَّأْوِيلِ.
Tafsir Tabari.
When discussing the observable phenomena – the author has not done his homework. He has copied from Christian sources without checking their accuracy:
وقوله (وَسَخَّرَ الشَّمْسَ وَالْقَمَرَ كُلٌّ يَجْرِي لأجَلٍ مُسَمًّى) يقول: وأجرى لكم الشمس والقمر نعمة منه عليكم، ورحمة منه بكم؛ لتعلموا عدد السنين والحساب، وتعرفوا الليل من النهار.
وقوله (كُلٌّ يَجْرِي لأجَلٍ مُسَمًى) يقول: كل ذلك يجري لوقت معلوم.
Look at what Tafsir Tabari talks about. And look at what the author alleges… two different things.
I have made the point before… it was their own detailed analysis, scholarship from various different aspect of examining each ayah… that Muslims scholars have produced such a large body of work. Their science interpretations … only match science of the day…. how could they go beyond that.
I also mention that Muslim traditional (as opposed to reformist) re-interpretations …. mostly only re-interpret according to the base meaning of the original word. hey do not re-invent new terms.
This author has copied Christian arguments. Without adding anything new. And that is why this is so-called contractions is disastrously and wholly inaccurate.
Furthermore …. it allegations towards Muslim Tafsir are not accurate either. It would have been better to study the sources … rather than taking someone elses word.
For secularists to borrow from Christians like that ….. its is devious malicious and out of hate. What else could it be?
———–
More:
ذِكْرُ مَنْ قَالَ ذَلِكَ: حَدَّثَنَا بِشْرٌ، قَالَ: ثَنَا يَزِيدُ، قَالَ: ثَنَا سَعِيدٌ، عَنْ قَتَادَةَ، قَوْلُهُ: ” {وَسَخَّرَ الشَّمْسَ وَالْقَمَرَ كُلٌّ يَجْرِي إِلَى أَجَلٍ مُسَمًّى} [لقمان: 29] يَقُولُ: لِذَلِكَ كُلِّهِ وَقْتٌ وَحَّدٌ مَعْلُومٌ، لَا يُجَاوِزُهُ وَلَا يَعْدُوهُ ”
ذِكْرُ مَنْ قَالَ ذَلِكَ: حَدَّثَنَا بِشْرٌ، قَالَ: ثنا يَزِيدُ، قَالَ: ثنا سَعِيدٌ، عَنْ قَتَادَةَ، قَوْلُهُ: {وَسَخَّرَ الشَّمْسَ وَالْقَمَرَ كُلٌّ يَجْرِي لِأَجَلٍ مُسَمًّى} [الرعد: 2] «أَجْلٍ مَعْلُومٍ وَحَدٍّ لَا يَقْصُرُ دُونَهُ وَلَا يَتَعَدَّاهُ»
“Interestingly, the entire Quran contains only knowledge that we would expect to be around in ancient Arabia.”
Doh!
———
They ask thee concerning Dhu al Qarnayn. Say “I will rehearse to you something of his story.” Verily We established his power on earth, and We gave him the ways and the means to all ends. One (such) way he followed, Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water: near it he found a People: “… … …” Then followed he (another) way. Until, when he came to the rising of the sun, he found it rising on a people for whom We had provided no covering protection against the sun. (He left them) as they were: We completely understood what was before him. (18:83-18:91)
The earth does not have “ends”. Moreover, we should all be clear the sun doesn’t set in a “spring of murky water”.
———–
The above is more re-hashing. The earth not having two ends? It actually does.
The earth does not have “ends”. Moreover, we should all be clear the sun doesn’t set in a “spring of murky water”.
This is really silly argument. The above in original Arabic is wonderful imagery – Google “sunset” … first 10 images will set you on your way.
Why pose these ridiculous assertions…. as some sort of high brow arguments. Without backing from Academia?
——–
If it interesting the people posting these assume Muslim names …. that is devious.
The worst is …. Muslim Atheist. The two are extreme opposite. This doesn’t make any sense. Only purpose I conclude is to be provocative. It doesn’t work.
Excellent article about the lamentable brick of literalist inanity called the Quran.
You are mistaken in stating that “semen is created in the testicles”.
While it is true that the spermatozoa are created in the testes, the bulk of semen (seminal fluid) is a lubricating and nourishing medium that is created by the prostate gland, the seminal vesicles, and the Cowper glands. These structures and the tubes that connect them are in the pelvic area so one might be able to (poetically) refer to that place as “between the loins and ribs”. That is also where the contractions of orgasm and the “gushing” comes from, though of course the semen (including sperm) finally passes through the urethra.
It doesn’t require an anatomist to figure out that semen is being made in the body somewhere. And any man (and most wives) would know how semen finally exits the body, so your focusing on the “issues” language doesn’t clarify anything.
But agreed that this verse of the Quran ignores the importance of the testes (and completely ignores the mother’s contribution) so it is at best poetry rather than an attempt at imparting medical knowledge.
IANADBLIUOW (I am not a doctor but looked it up on Wikipedia)
P.S. There’s a whole page on this verse in WikiIslam: Qur’an and Semen Production (Qur’an 86:7)
There we go…. look at the class of people this kind of nonsense attracts:
“Wikipedia” – users and another person easily finding the source of the above trash was copied from Christians – hell bent on coming up with errors in the Quran at any price.
Pedant…. there isn’t much point in pasting stuff for the heck of it – if you don’t really understand what the subject matter is.
The authors use of the word “contradiction” really is off-putting. It is inaccurate.
Contradiction 4
And of every thing We have created pairs: That ye may receive instruction. (Quran: 51:49)
This objection contradicts authors first objection – where he indicates that finding minute exceptions do not alter a general rule.
However:
Parthenogenesis does not mean nonexistence of males. Simply reproduction asexually. Even in all-female reproduction – the male would have been there in evolutionary line.
Even plant that reproduce asexually have male and females!
Using the above to call the Quran in accurate is in itself inaccurate. Especially how widely you can apply this concept of two….. I/O
——————–
This is what happens if you paste Christian bile in a secular guise. At Least Robert Spencer and his ilk would thank you for promoting their handiwork.
“The above in original Arabic is wonderful imagery”
Amin, you do understand that the translations quoted are the ones that are in circulation, don’t you? Until you can get your Ulema to denounce these translations on account of incorrectness, the “translations are not correct” argument doesn’t stand. Regarding the sunset, if it was indeed beautiful imagery, why did Yusuf Ali (and others) fail to see this?
And please don’t make personal attacks. This is my real name.
“Sayyed Mehdi” – is it?
“And please don’t make personal attacks. This is my real name.”
It is not a personal attack … I have not highlighted your name. You have done it. And I am right to have suspicions….
———
Those English translations are rough translations at best… and often can be inaccurate.
Yes they are commonly available – and their degree of accuracy varies. All translations will have degree of inaccuracy… that is “understood”.
The level and subject of discussion requires – at least some familiarity with Arabic.
——
Actually it does… it is not that the whole
As I pointed out CLEARLY where the fault was…. the english introduced new words which were not
————-
Here – you have either misunderstood the argument or are deliberately misleading. Else what is is that Yusuf Ali has missed?
This is not a translation argument. It was regarding the argument that sunsets in a physical place or …. is it just imagery.
As pointed out…. just look at image of a sunset and then compare the verse. Although it is aptly put in Arabic …. but the image is rather an obvious one.
Among the above nonsense… this is easily the most stupidest argument.
Sorry – I was actually editing this … but lost the little screen.
Until you can get your Ulema to denounce these translations on account of incorrectness, the “translations are not correct” argument doesn’t stand.
Actually it does… it is not that the whole translation that is wrong per-se. But all have degree of inaccuracy. My example was exact. And it is already acknowledged that many English translation – especially the older ones are poor and inexact.
As I pointed out CLEARLY where the fault was…. the English introduced new words which were not present in the original Arabic (could be misleading)… and gave a more accurate word by example. I also backed it up with a reference from Tafsir.
Amin @ 7:27 AM:
It is interesting that you attack me for showing that J J Muhammed’s original post criticizing the Quran was at least partially mistaken.
The verse in question, taken as a simple reference to each of us originating in a gush of our father’s semen, is correct as far as it goes. That it doesn’t include what we today consider to be important details is irrelevant; it’s only a single verse. The attempts here and in WikiIslam to parse this into something more (or less) are a waste of time. The WikiIslam article shows Muslim scholars coming up with seven different explanations for this one verse!
It is true that the English version of Wikipedia is written mostly by Christians and “cultural” Christians, but you’ll have to show me how that affects its articles on human reproductive anatomy. I’m pretty sure they weren’t written in an attempt to show that the Quran is false.
If you can find any mistakes in these articles, you yourself can become a Wikipedia editor and try to improve them. In my opinion they could stand some improvement. But if you do, please reference recognized medical sources, not the Quran.
“It is interesting that you attack me for showing that J J Muhammed’s original post criticizing the Quran was at least partially mistaken.”
Really?!!!
——
“The WikiIslam article shows Muslim scholars coming up with seven different explanations for this one verse!”
In total Muslim Tafsirs have lot more… and from many perspectives.
——-
A poor policeman is a poor policeman – whether white or black. Words of one Steve Biko of South Africa.
I think, you don’t really understand the science. I am a bit tired of people who will simply Google something and then paste it. Without really knowing what they are talking about.
Whichever side they are on.
——
I was once looking how anti-Muslim website denounce Islam=Peace – and the range of meanings they give for meaning of the word Islam.
The worst offender I came across was Arab Muslim Translator. She had declared the word Islam to be verb! Ouch!
Amin @ 8:15 PM:
Pedant: It is interesting that you attack me for showing that J J Muhammed’s original post criticizing the Quran was at least partially mistaken.
Amin: Really?!!!
—
Yes, really.
Amin, you write that Muslim scholars have many many explanations for the verse. That is consistent with it being poetry, not a straightforward statement about the transmission of human life.
I try to provide a little bit of relevant content, commenting on the original post. You accuse me of ignorant cut-and-pasting from anti-Islam sites. You never list even one of my supposed errors.
You compare Wikipedia to the Apartheid regime of South Africa. How that accusation is even relevant in this context is beyond me.
Amin, since I now understand you I will not respond further in this thread. You can have the last word.
Quran is NOT a book of science. It is a religious book. It is not poetry… but is quite poetical. It claims to be linguistic miracle. That it is.
I never accused you to cut and paste from Christian Sites… else show me. I simply object to pasting stuff that you don’t really understand. Pretentious people tend to do that. The author of this article is one such example.
Else answer me regarding how much science do you actually understand… if you do understand what you wrote about then I apologise.
———
You did not understand the example … and I did not compare SA to Wiki. I quoted Steve Biko. And did not even mention the SA apartheid regime.
Point being that it doesn’t matter if someone is supporting you… I dislike pretense of having great knowledge when you don’t.
——
A get-out clause…neat. Your 3 or 4 comments did not make as much sense as this
— Salomon Reinach
From the literary point of view, the Koran has little merit. Declamation, repetition, puerility, a lack of logic and coherence strike the unprepared reader at every turn. It is humiliating to the human intellect to think that this mediocre literature has been the subject of innumerable commentaries, and that millions of men are still wasting time absorbing it.
— Salomon Reinach
Sure – a man who couldn’t even read it. An honoured comment from a French Archaeologist.
Even I can find better class of negativity…
So Amin,
what are the circumstances under which you would even begin to consider that the Koran isn’t a message from God, absolutely true (within the realm of poetic license), etc.?
It seems to me from your tone, and the violence of your repeated ad hominems (no doubt I’m going to get one too, just for pointing them out), that there are no such circumstances, that you have (along with many Muslims, and members of other religions) sacrificed your critical faculties in favour of the comfort of believing ‘no matter what’.
The religious mindset does this to people, i.e. makes a virtue out of not-thinking-for-yourself.
Please note that I haven’t made an ad hominem to you: I merely comment on how you come across. Perhaps I shoulld also note that, unlike some of your critics, you seem well informed and, within the parameters of your agenda, fairly intelligent.
What does this even mean….. I cannot even begin to answer this.
—–
uh … “violence of your repeated ad hominems”
And why is pointing that out “Violent”…. a careful choice of the word. If people start making personal attacks…. rather than concentrate on your views…. what are you meant to do?
Even worse is falsifying what you say or drawing conclusions that suit their prejudices rather than from what you’ve actually said.
End the debate…. and I point to that… simple. Where is “violence” – In all that…
… see, that to me shows prejudice. A Muslim and Violent
” that there are no such circumstances, that you have (along with many Muslims, and members of other religions) sacrificed your critical faculties in favour of the comfort of believing ‘no matter what’.”
But why are my personal beliefs in question…. and what do they have to do with the above? You don’t know me or my beliefs… yet why the repeated questioning on that subject… what is it that you are really after?
The religious mindset does this to people, i.e. makes a virtue out of not-thinking-for-yourself.
If you say so… your view. And?
Please note that I haven’t made an ad hominem to you: I merely comment on how you come across. Perhaps I shoulld also note that, unlike some of your critics, you seem well informed and, within the parameters of your agenda, fairly intelligent.
No, you haven’t insulted me in any way shape or form… so why point that out preemptively?
Why thank you for the compliments…
———–
The article was about so called Quranic contradictions…. not only was the word contradiction used wrongly… the article was borrowed from Christian apologetics/hate monger [whichever view you take]… under the guise of “Atheism/Secularism/Agnosticism” … that I found very suspect.
Even if every last word of the Qur’an was factually correct; even if every last phrase and syntactical structure, every clause and trope was testiment to the very pinnacle of Arabic language excellence; even then, the best that might be said of the Qur’an was that it was an excellently factual book, perfectly written. None of that would, on its own, be evidence of some divine origin.
True. That is not the reason why Muslims claim the Qur’an to be divine. It is simply a feature of the book.
@Amin,
It is not worthwhile to argue with those who lack sound belief in Allah because at the very beginning of the Quran Allah made it clear that this Book is for the Muttaqun. Therefore , to appreciate the beauty of this book you need to be a Muttaqi i.e a sense of fear/love of Allah is a prerequisite.
Chapter 2, Verse 2 : This is the Book (the Qur’an), whereof there is no doubt, a guidance to those who are Al-Muttaqun
No Munir… that is not right. It is simply pointless to argue with people who instantly jump to insult you personally. Whomsoever they believed in.
Muslims do it to… very common on the Internet.
— — —
My biggest issue with this post is why take the work of Christian Far-Right and post it under guise of either Secularism, Original Research or Academia.
I thought this website was against extremism. Why are you using cheap and dishonest arguments of Christian missionaries?