Alleged Contradictions

[humblemuslim]

if something is *scientific* it is not a miracle and if something is a *miracle* it is not scientific. as such, it would be more correct to say to "prove a scientific theory" since science doesn't have "proof" or "Laws" (though it is often mistaken to have these things). when we talk about the *law* of Gravity.. we are really talking about the Theory of Gravity. however, as this theory has been demonstrated so consistently, we simply refer to it as a law... keep in mind, though, that science still views it as a theory. and this is exactly why Einsteins theory of Gravity replaced Newtons theory of Gravity, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair pending the outcome

What is meant by scientific miracle ,basically, is that it is something the prophet would not have knowledge of that was recorded in the Qur'an. Also it depends on the view one takes on what a miracle is. If God did indeed create the universe, God also created all the laws of the universe which make up what we call science. So then you must ask yourself is a miracle simply an act that is outside the realm God has created for us (i.e. Something impossible by the laws set for us). Or is a miracle simply an act within the laws of the universe, just maybe one that isn't very probable or maybe even some law we have no knowledge of to current day. Or maybe both? One thing is certain miracles are thought of as something rare and entirely impossible or nearly impossible (But what we think of as impossible may very well be easily accomplished with the knowledge of the universe).

i just don't really know what the value of that is.

let me say it like this. If, as it is said, Al Qur'an is clear in its communication, why were none of these scientific "miracles" able to be discovered before?

Being clear in communication doesn't necessarily mean you will understand everything easily. If you take a small child and speak very clearly to them using very plain and simply language about an advanced topic, meaning in such words that they understand the words you speak, it doesn't necessarily mean they will be able to apply your words in an understanding way.

 

[humblemuslim]

Makes me wonder why God would have to repeat himself.
Nontheless, one should argue why God didn't have a better, more acurate measuring system for the primitive man, than the variance of a cubit for instance. Why not give them the metric system then?
The measuring system is from man, but that wouldn't take away from any truth of the matter the book is discussing.

Well I don't intend to argue why God would use human standards. God needs to level with humankind in a manner they can understand. If suddenly God stated "And the object was 5 Meters long" Everyone would be like "What is that?!"

But being inconsistent is another issue. In some ways this suggests that the multitude of authors that composed the Bible maybe were not writing God's Words, but rather their own in inspiration of God. For example I could proclaim God has inspired me to write something and publish it, but just because God inspired me, is my book the Word of God? Hardly. Before anyone gets all tense, I only state it suggests this. It is hardly a clear cut case. I'm sure someone could interpert this as being anything but a suggestion as well.

And before you make any assumptions...I think both the Bible and the Quran are merely man written, with no divine influence.

Ok.

 

[MachineGod]

Well I don't intend to argue why God would use human standards. God needs to level with humankind in a manner they can understand. If suddenly God stated "And the object was 5 Meters long" Everyone would be like "What is that?!"

Then you concede my point.

But being inconsistent is another issue.

No. The inconsistency is in the measurement standard or system of fallible humans in the time each book was written. If the measurement system can be devised by humans, and God simply applies that standard to whom he is speaking, (so they don’t go, “what’s that?”, as you have conceded), then there is no error even in the theology of it all. It becomes an admissible inconsistency.

In some ways this suggests that the multitude of authors that composed the Bible maybe were not writing God's Words, but rather their own in inspiration of God. For example I could proclaim God has inspired me to write something and publish it, but just because God inspired me, is my book the Word of God? Hardly.

This is what I suggest of both books, actually, but that if for other reasons besides the matter of how many baths a structure held.

Ok

Just making sure you don’t get the wrong idea.

 

[humblemuslim]

I figured I would have to.

Well if you figured then why leave me clueless for the time being? Often times I do see the alleged contradiction, but certain accusations aren't as easily noticed, espeically from my point of view.

In several places the Quran challenges the unbelievers to produce something similar to the Quran.

Based on these verses, Muslims are convinced that the Quran is absolutely unique and unparalleled. For many it is an important element in their belief in the divine origin of the Quran that nobody was ever able to meet this particular challenge. I want to focus on the amazing fact that there are statements in the Quran which acknowledge that this challenge has already been met! The Quran asserts that the revelation given to Moses is similar and equal to the Quran. Consider the following passage:

Now that the Truth has come to them from Us, they are saying: "Why is he (Muhammad) not given the like of what was given to Musa?" Have they not rejected that which was given to Musa before? They claim: "These (Torah and Qur'an) are the two works of sorcery complementing each other!" And they say: "We believe in neither." Ask them: "Bring a Book from Allah which is a better guide THAN THESE TWO, I will follow it, if what you say be true!" S. 28:48-49 Malik

Muhammad challenges the unbelievers to bring a book which is not only a better guide than the Quran, but also better than the book of Moses!

First off let's clear one item at a time:

1. Something else other than the Qur'an is equal to it in Message.

Response: Every single verse regarding and equal verse or Message to that of the Qur'an is challenging mankind and even in instances the Jinn as well to produce a text equal to the Qur'an (God isn't challenging Himself, that would be silly). Of course the Scripture given to Moses would be similar and quite possiblily equal. God's Word against God's Word, they are equal! What you are driving at is based on a false premise. You are basing this entire point on the following : "The Qur'an has no equal Message at all, period". Well what if God sends down another Book, or as we know God sent down other Books before the Qur'an. Is God's Word not equal to God's Word? In essence this is saying that mankind (Even with the help of Jinn) are unable to mimic the Word of God perfectly.

2. A better Book is present authored by God???

Response: There isn't. Read the end of the verse:

"Ask them: "Bring a Book from Allah which is a better guide THAN THESE TWO, I will follow it, if what you say be true!""

God is commanding Muhammad to challenge them. Muhammad is to demand a book that is authored by God which is better. It is obvious that no such book exists, as this is a plain challenge that cannot be met. In fact the very next verse says:

028.050
YUSUFALI: But if they hearken not to thee, know that they only follow their own lusts: and who is more astray than one who follow his own lusts, devoid of guidance from Allah? for Allah guides not people given to wrong-doing.
PICKTHAL: And if they answer thee not, then know that what they follow is their lusts. And who goeth farther astray than he who followeth his lust without guidance from Allah. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk.
SHAKIR: But if they do not answer you, then know that they only follow their low desires; and who is more erring than he who follows his low desires without any guidance from Allah? Surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.

028.051
YUSUFALI: Now have We caused the Word to reach them themselves, in order that they may receive admonition.
PICKTHAL: And now verily We have caused the Word to reach them, that haply they may give heed.
SHAKIR: And certainly We have made the word to reach them so that they may be mindful.

When performing a careful analysis of all statements found in the Quran in regard to the Jewish and Christian scriptures, the conclusion can only be that the Quran teaches that these scriptures are genuinely the Word of God and upholds their integrity and authority.

You make numerous baseless assumption while trying to defend this point. The fact of the matter is the Qur'an clearly states that other Scriptures have had alterations of sorts (Whether be they omittions or additions). In no place does the Qur'an state that the Christian and Jewish Scriptures are still entirely the Word of God, infact quite the opposite. Nor does it state they are entirely a work of man. Personally I've interperted that it is a mixture of the two, both God's Words and the words of man.

The widely propagated Muslim polemic that the Bible (including the Torah) has been corrupted and is no longer the original divinely inspired text, leads to several problems and absurdities. It places the Quran itself on the level of a corrupted text, since the Quran claims to be like the Torah, it turns the challenge of the Quran into a farce since in that case it has been met before it was issued, and it creates an internal contradiction in the Quran as the Quran then states both, that the challenge cannot be met, but also admits that there is a book (the Torah) which fulfills the challenge.

Most everything stated here seems to be based on a misinterpertion. I'll get into more detail tommorow on why.

By making the charge of Bible corruption, Muslims are denying the clear message of the Quran. They have to reject several statements of the Quran to uphold this polemic.

I disagree. I'll show in specific why tommorow.

On the other hand, if Muslims were to follow the genuine teaching of the Quran that the Torah is truly the word of God, and accept the reasoning of the Quran, which seeks to derive its authority from "being like the Torah" and the Torah's divine authority, then they would have to denounce Islam as false, since the Quran irreconcilably contradicts the Torah on many essential teachings. The Quran only claims to be in confirmation of the Torah and the Gospel, but actually is in sharp contradiction to both the Jewish and the Christian scriptures that it appeals to.

And here I notice one of your deadly assumptions. Where does the Qur'an say that every word in it is confirmed in the Torah or other Scriptures or vice versa? When I say every word, I mean every word. Where is this stated? No where, this is an assumption on your part. There are indeed places in the Qur'an that does have confirmation with the past Scriptures, even in today's form.

In short, Muslims are forced to denouce the Bible as corrupt, since many of it's teachings are in condradiction to the Quran...otherwise they must denouce the Quran. Yet, by denoucing the Bible, they denounce the Quran which specifically upholds the integrity and authority of the Bible. In fact, many of the teachings in the Quran CAME FROM the Bible, as the Quran was written MUCH later, at which time any alleged curruption had already taken place. Therefore to say the Bible is corrupt is to say the Quran is corrupt.

Let's see another deadly mistake of yours:

"The Qur'an came AFTER the Bible therefore it CAME FROM THE BIBLE"

Prove it. You will find this task impossible. You might be able to suggest it, but you'll never prove it. If indeed God is the source of both, then it isn't to any surprise that certain elements are similar or in agreement. The premise "If something came before another thing and the latter is similar or the same guarantees the latter is a copy or derived from the former" is a premise that will not always hold true. Weak argument.

 

[MachineGod]

Well if you figured then why leave me clueless for the time being?

I had to go at the time and wasn't able to explain. Sorry.
I'll get back to you on your reply

 

[humblemuslim]

I had to go at the time and wasn't able to explain. Sorry.
I'll get back to you on your reply

Ok. Well I must be going for now. I'll come back and compose an entry (Maybe two depending on length) pretaining to the corruption of the Bible and Torah and also the confirmation between the Qur'an and these Scriptures.


Peace

 

[MachineGod]

First off let's clear one item at a time:

1. Something else other than the Qur'an is equal to it in Message.

Response: Every single verse regarding and equal verse or Message to that of the Qur'an is challenging mankind and even in instances the Jinn as well to produce a text equal to the Qur'an (God isn't challenging Himself, that would be silly). Of course the Scripture given to Moses would be similar and quite possiblily equal. God's Word against God's Word, they are equal! What you are driving at is based on a false premise. You are basing this entire point on the following : "The Qur'an has no equal Message at all, period". Well what if God sends down another Book, or as we know God sent down other Books before the Qur'an. Is God's Word not equal to God's Word? In essence this is saying that mankind (Even with the help of Jinn) are unable to mimic the Word of God perfectly.

2. A better Book is present authored by God???

Response: There isn't. Read the end of the verse:

"Ask them: "Bring a Book from Allah which is a better guide THAN THESE TWO, I will follow it, if what you say be true!""

God is commanding Muhammad to challenge them. Muhammad is to demand a book that is authored by God which is better. It is obvious that no such book exists, as this is a plain challenge that cannot be met.

I began saying that it is the assertion of Muslims that the Torah is corrupt that causes this contradiction.

• Here, you concede that the Quran states that the Torah is authored by God. That they are equal. God isn’t challenging himself, so the preceding verses should be interpreted to include the Torah when it challenges men to present a better book than “these two”.

Then…

You make numerous baseless assumption while trying to defend this point. The fact of the matter is the Qur'an clearly states that other Scriptures have had alterations of sorts (Whether be they omittions or additions). In no place does the Qur'an state that the Christian and Jewish Scriptures are still entirely the Word of God, infact quite the opposite. Nor does it state they are entirely a work of man. Personally I've interperted that it is a mixture of the two, both God's Words and the words of man.

It’s not an assumption…you just conceded that point just prior to this comment. Yet, now…

2 You claim the Quran does NOT state that the Christian and Jewish scriptures are “entirely” the word of God. You claim the Quran does NOT state they are “entirely” the work of man. (Gee, that really leaves it open to pick and choose doesn’t it) Yet, then the Quran says Torah is EQUAL to the Quran. As you have conceded (“God's Word against God's Word, they are equal!”)

How can the Quran confirm the authority of the Torah, if it is corrupt and not “entirely” the word of God? How can a corrupt book, be equal to an inerrant one? It can’t!

I’d like to see the verses that states “in fact, quite the opposite.” That Torah is not still “entirely” the word of God, while it places it as equal.

The original contradiction was in the claim that Torah is corrupt while Quran places it as equal (both are gods word) to the Quran.

Now, you should realize that if you offer such verses that specifically claim the corruption of Torah (through objective interpretation), while the Quran confirms the authority of the Torah, as you have conceded, then it offers the same contradiction, only within the verse you propose to offer.

If you accept the Quran message that the Torah has authority, then we need only discuss the many contradiction between the two teachings.

You are in a hypocritical infinite loop.

Most everything stated here seems to be based on a misinterpertion. I'll get into more detail tommorow on why.

Ah yes, the movable “interpretation of context” argument. I hope the interpretation you offer is objective.

And here I notice one of your deadly assumptions. Where does the Qur'an say that every word in it is confirmed in the Torah or other Scriptures or vice versa? When I say every word, I mean every word. Where is this stated? No where, this is an assumption on your part. There are indeed places in the Qur'an that does have confirmation with the past Scriptures, even in today's form.

Isn’t interesting how a small twist of words will change the entire meaning?

I said, “the Quran claims to be in confirmation of Torah…” Not “confirmed in Torah”. You have it backwards…the Torah is supposedly confirmed in the Quran by offering it as an equal.

Also, it doesn’t have to specifically say “every word” in the Torah is the word of God…it is a consequence of the Quran being equal to Torah, as I’ve discussed, and you conceded (God's Word against God's Word, they are equal!). Both are considered the inerrant, and infallible word of God, otherwise they would not be equal. You are shifting interpretation to suite your cause.

Let's see another deadly mistake of yours:

"The Qur'an came AFTER the Bible therefore it CAME FROM THE BIBLE"

Prove it. You will find this task impossible. You might be able to suggest it, but you'll never prove it.

LoL, the inevitable defense when backed into a corner.

You mean to tell me it is impossible to present the likeness of the Quran? Hmm…but uh, Gods word came from Gods word, of course!!!! Remember?


I think I’m done here. Like I said, I don’t expect you to denounce your religion, which is exactly what you would have to do. Like Christians (such as peacefulsoul) and Jews, you will zealously defend your position even in the face of utter hypocrisy.

 

[vajradhara]

Salaam HM,

thank you for the post.

What is meant by scientific miracle ,basically, is that it is something the prophet would not have knowledge of that was recorded in the Qur'an.

then it is not scientific since Al Qur'an is not a science book.

Also it depends on the view one takes on what a miracle is.

clearly. usually, the definition of a miracle is an event in time which transcends the so-called laws of nature. the event is inexplicable, as it were.

If God did indeed create the universe, God also created all the laws of the universe which make up what we call science.

not correct. science is not composed of the theories of the universe. science is a methodology of knowing, a method of understanding with predictive power. you may find this link to be of some value:

http://http-server.carleton.ca/~tpatters/teaching/climatechange/sciencemethod.html

So then you must ask yourself is a miracle simply an act that is outside the realm God has created for us (i.e. Something impossible by the laws set for us).

i feel as if that is the standard definition of miracle... if we can explain how it happened, there's not much room for a miracle there... expect, perhaps, in the timing of the happening.

Or is a miracle simply an act within the laws of the universe, just maybe one that isn't very probable or maybe even some law we have no knowledge of to current day.

if we're speculating... why couldn't it be invisible force rays from alien spaceships?

One thing is certain miracles are thought of as something rare and entirely impossible or nearly impossible (But what we think of as impossible may very well be easily accomplished with the knowledge of the universe).

it depends on your religious tradition. within Buddhism, so-called miracles are fairly common.. but they aren't really considered to be of much value. sure, they tend to impress the superstitious beings, however, that is something that Buddhists are enjoined to refrain from.

Being clear in communication doesn't necessarily mean you will understand everything easily.

or at all, apparently. i'm not sure how aware of Islamic history you are... however, the scientists and astronomers and mathmeticians were quite adept and advanced in the heyday of Islam. they would have had the same methods to determine these things as the Europeans did... yet, they clearly did not.

perhaps the scientific miracles weren't understood to be scientific miracles until Islam started to engage European and North American scientists in discussion and started to read their explanation for phenomena.

If you take a small child and speak very clearly to them using very plain and simply language about an advanced topic, meaning in such words that they understand the words you speak, it doesn't necessarily mean they will be able to apply your words in an understanding way.

true. i'm not sure how this is relevant to your point, though... unless you are claiming, by analogy, that Muslim scientists were like small children and thus couldn't understand the science?

 

[Green Man]

What happened during the time of 'Uthman?In his book"The History of Islamic Law"(page38),DR.Ahmed Shalabi says,

"The Qur'an was collected and entrusted to Hafsa.It was not proclaimed amoung people until the era of 'Uthman ibn Affan.Huthayfa,one of Muhammad's companions who fought in Armenia and Adharbijan,said to 'Uthman,'The Muslims disagree on the (correct) reading of the Qur'an and they fight among themselves.''Uthman ordered Zayd ibn Thabit and the other three to collect the Qur'an in one copy.After they accomplished that,'Uthman gave the order to burn the rest of the Qur'anic copies which were in the hands of Muhammad's companions.That was in the year 25H."

All Muslim scholars concur-such as Al-Bukhari(part6,page225),Suyuti in "The Itqan"(part 1,page 170),and Ibn Kathir in "The Beginning and the End"(part 7,page 218) in which he remarks,

"'Uthman burned the rest of the copies which were in the hands of the people because they disagreed on the (correct) reading and they fought among themselves.When they came to take ibn Mas'ud's copy to burn it,he told them,'I know more than Zayd ibn Thabit (whom ,Uthman ordered to collect the copies of the Qur'an).''Uthman wrote to ibn Mas'ud asking him to submit his copy for burning."


How is it possible for the Qur'an to survive in it's original form after all that.The simple answer is it couldn't survive unchanged.

 

[humblemuslim]

Here, you concede that the Quran states that the Torah is authored by God. That they are equal. God isn’t challenging himself, so the preceding verses should be interpreted to include the Torah when it challenges men to present a better book than “these two”.

The original, Yes. I'll reveal one thing that might alter this portion of your position for now:

You are striving to prove that the Torah is uncorrupted according to the Qur'an based on the fact that the Qur'an labels it a Book of God, puts in as equal with the Qur'an, and so forth.

Here is my major objection:

1. What Books make up the Torah? Honest question. Which ones? Are we talking about the first few Books labeled "The Law" or maybe the last large section labeled "The Prophets" Or possibly the last section labled "The Writings" Or All? Or None?

The labels mentioned above are labels given to certain portions of what the Jews call the "Torah". So which is the Qur'an referring to? Honestly if I were to answer this now, I would say more than likely the section labeled "The Law" because often times where an arabic word is translated as "Torah" or "Tanakh" in other translations it appears as "The Law" or "The Laws of Moses". If infact I am correct in my assumption then most of what is called the "Torah" is not what is being referred to. The only Books that are being referred to are:

• (Genesis)
• (Exodus)
• (Leviticus)
• (Numbers)
• (Deuteronomy)

And that is also assuming that whomever labled these Books as "The Law" did so correctly. Now notice that none of the alleged contradictions I have brought forth as of yet mention any of these Books. Infact in these Books there is alot of agreement with the Qur'an (Story of Adam and Eve being on instance, among other things). Regardless, personally I find there are too many assumptions around this issue to make any solid arguments or worthwhile ones.

Assumptions:

1. The Qur'an is referring to solely the Law of Moses (This assumption might very well be the strongest one of the list because the Qur'an does refer to the Scripture given specificly to Moses)

2. The portion today labeled as the Law is what the Qur'an is referring to.

3. The portion is properly labeled and the Law of Moses is infact perserved.

4. Not only was it perserved but never altered at all, no addtions nor omittions.

So if I was asked which part of the Bible is closest to the truth, I would be inclined to point towards these specific Old Testament Books. Also note I said Closest. Event these portions may have alterations.

It’s not an assumption…you just conceded that point just prior to this comment. Yet, now…


2 You claim the Quran does NOT state that the Christian and Jewish scriptures are “entirely” the word of God. You claim the Quran does NOT state they are “entirely” the work of man. (Gee, that really leaves it open to pick and choose doesn’t it) Yet, then the Quran says Torah is EQUAL to the Quran. As you have conceded (“God's Word against God's Word, they are equal!”)


How can the Quran confirm the authority of the Torah, if it is corrupt and not “entirely” the word of God? How can a corrupt book, be equal to an inerrant one? It can’t!

Incorrect, obviously we are having multiple misunderstandings. Maybe what I stated above will clear this up.

The original contradiction was in the claim that Torah is corrupt while Quran places it as equal (both are gods word) to the Quran.

I'm actually in progress of working on a rather detailed post on this. You'll just have to wait till I'm finished, which might be another week since I have other things that must be finished before it.

Ah yes, the movable “interpretation of context” argument. I hope the interpretation you offer is objective.

I try my best. If something I offer is based on faith, I usually make a note of it, unless it is otherwise obivous or I forget to do so.

LoL, the inevitable defense when backed into a corner.

You mean to tell me it is impossible to present the likeness of the Quran? Hmm…but uh, Gods word came from Gods word, of course!!!! Remember?

A mere observation. I'm not in any such corner. I can just as easily make random assumptions that are not necessarily true upon other faiths, although I do realize this is pointless.

I think I’m done here. Like I said, I don’t expect you to denounce your religion, which is exactly what you would have to do. Like Christians (such as peacefulsoul) and Jews, you will zealously defend your position even in the face of utter hypocrisy.

I think the problem here is you have already made up your mind (As you continue to label me and my position as 'hypocrisy' or 'hypocritical' or 'hypocrite'). And I notice that most of your arguments are hardly exclusive. Notice I have never labeled you "Ignorant" or "Stupid" or any such insults on your intellect based on your arguments, even though I find your argument to be completely false. I am quite open to other views, and quite often I perform lots of research and put lots of thought into what is stated. I don't just sit here and think to myself "Oh, he must be wrong! Has to be." I sit down and analyze what has been presented and see if any flaws in the argument exist. Sometimes I am not best equipped to answer a question, as with the mountains yet I am looking into currently, so I am left to offer what others have said on the subject. And even other times there is no exclusive answer, meaning that multiple answers will work. In which case there really is no point in debating over it.


I will however still compose my complete entry in the near futrue (Say a week from now, or maybe sooner) and see if you truly are just sitting there with a made mind, regardless of what is said, or if you are infact looking for a geniune answer.


Peace

 

[humblemuslim]

true. i'm not sure how this is relevant to your point, though... unless you are claiming, by analogy, that Muslim scientists were like small children and thus couldn't understand the science?

Compared to the knowledge of the vast universe, the knowledge of humanity as a whole is, in my opinion, insignificant. Also compared to God's wisdom and knowledge, yes I would say all humans are children (In a figurative sense). You could think of it in this manner, when God talks to humanity he has to "Dumb it down" to our level of understanding. Just like parents talk down to their children when trying to explain something complex. Although I have a feeling the way In which I've worded this might be somewhat misleading, although hopefully I can clear it up if any questions arise.

Peace

 

[Delta One]

Hi humblemuslim,

1. God was just giving an approximate value and roudned it off.

Response to this: Ok, well if this is the the case why isn't the circumference 31 Cubits? At least Pi would have been 3.1 which is far closer to the true value of Pi and more accurate. Rounding is one thing, but obviously there seems to be room for improvement on the value of Pi here.

Just how much error is there here? The error would be: (3.14-3.00)/(3.14) = 0.14. This equates into 4.67% error. Given the tools of measurement this is hardly nothing! Nothing worthy of disproving divine authorship of the Bible. The results of my practicals at college usually come out with anywhere from 0.5% up to 7%. For one of my practicals when we were measuring the value of gravity, my error value was I think a little bit over one, i.e. 9.79 plus or minus 1.2! Our modern day measurements for distance are by far more accurate than those from thousands of years ago.

Also, are you taking in the possiblity of error? Every measured value has the posibility of error, i.e. there would be an error value in the circumference and the diameter. This error, may make up a centimetre especially given their systems of measurement.

It would also help to know when this book was written and by who - both of which I am unsure.

Kind regards,

Delta One.

Btw, could you please define what the Islamic religion says about the origin of the universe (i.e. everything) in the thread that I made up on this forum? Thanks in advance.

 

[MachineGod]

The original, Yes. I'll reveal one thing that might alter this portion of your position for now:

You are striving to prove that the Torah is uncorrupted according to the Qur'an based on the fact that the Qur'an labels it a Book of God, puts in as equal with the Qur'an, and so forth.

Here is my major objection:

1. What Books make up the Torah? Honest question. Which ones? Are we talking about the first few Books labeled "The Law" or maybe the last large section labeled "The Prophets" Or possibly the last section labled "The Writings" Or All? Or None?

The labels mentioned above are labels given to certain portions of what the Jews call the "Torah". So which is the Qur'an referring to? Honestly if I were to answer this now, I would say more than likely the section labeled "The Law" because often times where an arabic word is translated as "Torah" or "Tanakh" in other translations it appears as "The Law" or "The Laws of Moses". If infact I am correct in my assumption then most of what is called the "Torah" is not what is being referred to.

It would be all the books of the Tanakh including the New Testament. If one translation says Tanakh, and another says "the Law of Moses" referring only to the Torah (first five books), then my assumption would be that the original language makes no distinction between Torah, and Tanakh because the Arabic word can be translated as both, as you specify. There is a difference between the Torah and Tanakh, which would be known to the author(s). Since the Quran makes no distinction, and does not specifically identify which portions ARE, or are NOT equal, then we MUST reasonably assume that it is referring to the entire Tanakh. Otherwise, it leaves it open for people to pick and choose which books they personally think it refers to, even though it doesn't specify...which of course, is exactly what you are hoping to do here.

And that is also assuming that whomever labled these Books as "The Law" did so correctly. Now notice that none of the alleged contradictions I have brought forth as of yet mention any of these Books.

Considering my above statements, it wouldn't matter. In fact, we should reasonably include the New Testament in it as well, since the Quran seems to have derived much of it's stories of Mary and Jesus from the New Testament. The author(s) of the Quran would have known about, and even read, the New Testament...and while they might not have specifically included it, they didn't specifically exclude it (to my knowledge)...it would become apparent that they felt it had authority. The beliefs of Christians, that Muslims are against, doesn't necessarily come from a corruption of the writings, but rather, corrupt interpretation of the writings.

Assumptions:

1. The Qur'an is referring to solely the Law of Moses (This assumption might very well be the strongest one of the list because the Qur'an does refer to the Scripture given specificly to Moses)

Your saying that it's an assumption that the Quran solely refers to the Law of Moses, and then say it's the strongest assumption because the Quran refers specifically to the Law of Moses. Those are two contradictory statements, one following the other. How can it be an assumption if it specifically refers to specific books? It does not specifically refer to the Torah (first five books) in the verses I've cited prior. It is not a strong assumption.

Besides...I can point out a ton of contradictions in the Torah as well...just to get us back on track if need be.

2. The portion today labeled as the Law is what the Qur'an is referring to.

Quran makes no distinction, so it is irrelevant.

3. The portion is properly labeled and the Law of Moses is infact perserved.

4. Not only was it perserved but never altered at all, no addtions nor omittions.

Number four would be the same as three in regards to preservation of the original text. Of course, this is why you're here. Trying to prove that alteration, additions, and omissions have been made that corrupted the preservation of the text, which would invalidate it. What I find interesting is that you don't consider that the Quran has been corrupted. Why? Because it's detrimental to your religion. Therefore you zealously defend it on faith, even though you have no answers for some of the many internal and external contradictions in the Quran. It's faith, not based on evidence...it's pure speculation on your part. And then because of the many contradictions between the teachings of the Bible and the Quran, it becomes detrimental to your religion to invalidate the Bible. Of course, due to statements regarding the Bible that we are discussing, and your attempt to invalidate the bible is where you enter into the loop.

btw...since we are on the subject, I noticed you didn't respond to GreenMan's post. I'd like to hear a response to that.

So if I was asked which part of the Bible is closest to the truth, I would be inclined to point towards these specific Old Testament Books. Also note I said Closest. Event these portions may have alterations..

Again, if it's only CLOSE to the truth, then my argument still stands regarding the Qurans statements of equality. A corrupt book (even just the Torah) that is CLOSE or CLOSEST to the truth, is not equal to one that is considered the whole inerrant truth.

If you concede that the Quran has, or may have had, alterations, and that it is not completely the inerrant word of God, while you claim the Bible is not as well, then I would have no more arguments, and there would be no contradiction. Get it?

Incorrect, obviously we are having multiple misunderstandings. Maybe what I stated above will clear this up..

Now your telling me I'm incorrect, while pointing me to a list of assumptions that you made, even saying those assumptions are too many to make a valid argument!

I'm actually in progress of working on a rather detailed post on this. You'll just have to wait till I'm finished, which might be another week since I have other things that must be finished before it.

ok.

I try my best. If something I offer is based on faith, I usually make a note of it, unless it is otherwise obivous or I forget to do so.

Ok. Take a note that you're bias defense of the Quran is based on faith, not facts.

I can just as easily make random assumptions that are not necessarily true upon other faiths, although I do realize this is pointless.

I agree. It is pointless to make assumptions based on faith. So stop it.

I think the problem here is you have already made up your mind

I'm not a child...if I'm wrong in the light of evidence I'll say so. Most of it however is simple logic.

I will however still compose my complete entry in the near futrue (Say a week from now, or maybe sooner) and see if you truly are just sitting there with a made mind, regardless of what is said, or if you are infact looking for a geniune answer.

Don't forget to include how the Quran is reasonably considered inerrant in your entry. The entire contradiction rests on this belief that Muslims have.

1. Quran is assumed inerrant

2. Quran states the Bible is equal to the Quran

3. Quran does not specify that only some portions (Torah) of the Bible are equal, and not others. One can only reasonably say it refers to the entire text.

4. Quran and Bible teachings contradict each other.

5. Bible is assumed errant

6. A corrput book (even just the Torah) that is CLOSE or CLOSEST to the truth, is not equal to one that is considered the whole inerrant truth.

The only way out of all of it, is to change the first assumption...the Quran contains errant information. If you can provide irrefutable evidence that the Quran refers only to the Torah, then we can go over the contradictions in the Torah until you concede corruption of it (which you already do not dismiss), and we can pick back up where we leave off. Your only way out is to concede that the Quran contains errant information.

[eidtted to add: for confirmation of (2.) and (3.) above.]

2:2 This is the Book; in it is guidance sure, without doubt, to those who fear Allah.

2:4 And who believe in the Revelation sent to thee, and sent before thy time, and (in their hearts) have the assurance of the Hereafter.
2:5 They are on (true) guidance, from their Lord, and it is these who will prosper.

2:21 O ye people! Adore your Guardian-Lord, who created you and those who came before you, that ye may have the chance to learn righteousness;

2:27 Those who break Allah's Covenant after it is ratified, and who sunder what Allah Has ordered to be joined, and do mischief on earth: These cause loss (only) to themselves.

2:41 And believe in what I reveal, confirming the revelation which is with you, and be not the first to reject Faith therein, nor sell My Signs for a small price; and fear Me, and Me alone.

2:47 Children of Israel! call to mind the (special) favour which I bestowed upon you, and that I preferred you to all other (for My Message)

2:62 Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

2:87 We gave Moses the Book and followed him up with a succession of apostles; We gave Jesus the son of Mary Clear (Signs) and strengthened him with the holy spirit.

2:97 Say: Whoever is an enemy to Gabriel-for he brings down the (revelation) to thy heart by Allah's will, a confirmation of what went before, and guidance and glad tidings for those who believe

2:121 Those to whom We have sent the Book study it as it should be studied: They are the ones that believe therein:

2:122 O Children of Israel! call to mind the special favour which I bestowed upon you, and that I preferred you to all others (for My Message).

2:136 Say ye: "We believe in Allah, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and that given to Moses and Jesus, and that given to (all) prophets from their Lord: We make no difference between one and another of them: And we bow to Allah (in Islam)."

2:176 (Their doom is) because Allah sent down the Book in truth but those who seek causes of dispute in the Book are in a schism Far (from the purpose).

[Now, would you like to forget about (5.) and (6.) above and just work on (1.) and (4.)? )

 

[humblemuslim]

Hi humblemuslim,

1. God was just giving an approximate value and roudned it off.

Response to this: Ok, well if this is the the case why isn't the circumference 31 Cubits? At least Pi would have been 3.1 which is far closer to the true value of Pi and more accurate. Rounding is one thing, but obviously there seems to be room for improvement on the value of Pi here.

Just how much error is there here? The error would be: (3.14-3.00)/(3.14) = 0.14. This equates into 4.67% error. Given the tools of measurement this is hardly nothing! Nothing worthy of disproving divine authorship of the Bible. The results of my practicals at college usually come out with anywhere from 0.5% up to 7%. For one of my practicals when we were measuring the value of gravity, my error value was I think a little bit over one, i.e. 9.79 plus or minus 1.2! Our modern day measurements for distance are by far more accurate than those from thousands of years ago.

Also, are you taking in the possiblity of error? Every measured value has the posibility of error, i.e. there would be an error value in the circumference and the diameter. This error, may make up a centimetre especially given their systems of measurement.

It would also help to know when this book was written and by who - both of which I am unsure.

Kind regards,

Delta One.

The main point of this alleged external contradiction is finding out whether another whole number value would yield a better value. I'm not sure you looked at the calculations I posted, but depending on the situtation you hold you'll see that Pi can only be achieved under one situation that seems to not even be supported by the wording of the passage. And Infact I did eventually take into account the uncertainty of the conversion factor of a cubit and Head Breadth and found that under the most sound situtation the two had little effect and would have to be blown extremely out of proportion (Crazy numbers) to even get close to Pi.

Regardless I've spent enough time on this single alleged contradiction, so I'll be moving along in a little while here.

Btw, could you please define what the Islamic religion says about the origin of the universe (i.e. everything) in the thread that I made up on this forum? Thanks in advance.

Sure, just be patient. I'm alittle behind on a few threads and wont be able to truly catch up until around probably wednesday of next week by the latest.

peace

 

[humblemuslim]

It would be all the books of the Tanakh including the New Testament.

The New Testament is not part of the Torah....

If one translation says Tanakh, and another says "the Law of Moses" referring only to the Torah (first five books), then my assumption would be that the original language makes no distinction between Torah, and Tanakh because the Arabic word can be translated as both, as you specify.

There is a difference between the Torah and Tanakh, which would be known to the author(s). Since the Quran makes no distinction, and does not specifically identify which portions ARE, or are NOT equal, then we MUST reasonably assume that it is referring to the entire Tanakh. Otherwise, it leaves it open for people to pick and choose which books they personally think it refers to, even though it doesn't specify...which of course, is exactly what you are hoping to do here.

I don't like this assumption. Reasoning:

1. The Torah is said to be given to Moses alone

2. David was given the Pslams which is part of the so called collective term "The Torah"

But regardless I'll ask a friend who is more knowledable of the arabic to inform me the specifics.

Your saying that it's an assumption that the Quran solely refers to the Law of Moses, and then say it's the strongest assumption because the Quran refers specifically to the Law of Moses. Those are two contradictory statements, one following the other. How can it be an assumption if it specifically refers to specific books? It does not specifically refer to the Torah (first five books) in the verses I've cited prior. It is not a strong assumption.

Besides...I can point out a ton of contradictions in the Torah as well...just to get us back on track if need be.

I said strongest...

btw...since we are on the subject, I noticed you didn't respond to GreenMan's post. I'd like to hear a response to that.

Only because of time. In time I'll respond to everything that has been offered here, and if after addressing everything I leave something out, at this point you may remind me.

Now your telling me I'm incorrect, while pointing me to a list of assumptions that you made, even saying those assumptions are too many to make a valid argument!

Those assumptions are to make your argument work..... Except assumption one is merely an observation you haven't included in your argument, although you seem to believe this won't effect the outcome much if any.

So you are putting down the very assumptions that make your argument even considerable? Or did you not realize this?

Ok. Take a note that you're bias defense of the Quran is based on faith, not facts.

Your entire argument is about a faith related concept. If you don't wish to deal with faith, then don't bring faith related arguments to the table.

I agree. It is pointless to make assumptions based on faith. So stop it.

Faith by defintion is Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

So let's see here. You are demanding that I drop my faith in order to prove faith.

This demand is essentially a demand for me to have no faith. To be faithless.

Why bring a faith related argument when your demands are to remove all faith from it? Makes no sense.

Now if what you intended to say was let's look at the Qur'an for what it states and not from some baseless opinion of what it states then that's fine.

I'm not a child...if I'm wrong in the light of evidence I'll say so. Most of it however is simple logic.

Let me attempt to educate you on logic:

You stated that because the Bible came before the Qur'an and the Qur'an has similar content in some parts that it was derived from the Bible.

Let me first cite a specific simple example and then apply it to your "Simple Logic".

First I'll be abbrev. statements with letters for the sake of space:

A - It is Snowing
B - It is Cold outside

If A then B

A
----------------
Therefore B

This is valid simple logic. If it is snowing then it is cold outside. However notice what happens when we reverse the order:

If A then B

B
-----------------
Therefore A

This is invalid. If it is cold outside doesn't guarntee it is snowing. This is the fallacy of affirming the consequent.


Now let's apply the same to the "Simple Logic" you have given:

A - Something is derived from another source
B - It will be similar in content and possibly wording

If A then B
A
--------------
B

This is a valid form of logic. If you KNOW something was derived from a source, then you can conclude (Assuming the author of the 2nd work was infact using the original for content) that it will be similar in content and possibly wording


But this is what you are doing:

If A then B
B
-----------------
A

Fallacy of affirming the consequent. In order words, just like the snowing example, IT IS NOT NECESSARILY THE CASE THAT JUST BECAUSE TWO WORKS ARE SIMILAR IN CONTENT OR EVEN WORDING THAT THE LATTER WAS DERIVED FROM THE EARILER.


I suggest you stop acting like this is valid "Simple Logic" because quite the opposite it is "Simple Illogic"

Don't forget to include how the Quran is reasonably considered inerrant in your entry. The entire contradiction rests on this belief that Muslims have.

1. Quran is assumed inerrant

2. Quran states the Bible is equal to the Quran

3. Quran does not specify that only some portions (Torah) of the Bible are equal, and not others. One can only reasonably say it refers to the entire text.

4. Quran and Bible teachings contradict each other.

5. Bible is assumed errant

6. A corrput book (even just the Torah) that is CLOSE or CLOSEST to the truth, is not equal to one that is considered the whole inerrant truth.

I'll address all of this and much more.

 

[humblemuslim]

What happened during the time of 'Uthman?In his book"The History of Islamic Law"(page38),DR.Ahmed Shalabi says,

"The Qur'an was collected and entrusted to Hafsa.It was not proclaimed amoung people until the era of 'Uthman ibn Affan.Huthayfa,one of Muhammad's companions who fought in Armenia and Adharbijan,said to 'Uthman,'The Muslims disagree on the (correct) reading of the Qur'an and they fight among themselves.''Uthman ordered Zayd ibn Thabit and the other three to collect the Qur'an in one copy.After they accomplished that,'Uthman gave the order to burn the rest of the Qur'anic copies which were in the hands of Muhammad's companions.That was in the year 25H."

All Muslim scholars concur-such as Al-Bukhari(part6,page225),Suyuti in "The Itqan"(part 1,page 170),and Ibn Kathir in "The Beginning and the End"(part 7,page 218) in which he remarks,

"'Uthman burned the rest of the copies which were in the hands of the people because they disagreed on the (correct) reading and they fought among themselves.When they came to take ibn Mas'ud's copy to burn it,he told them,'I know more than Zayd ibn Thabit (whom ,Uthman ordered to collect the copies of the Qur'an).''Uthman wrote to ibn Mas'ud asking him to submit his copy for burning."


How is it possible for the Qur'an to survive in it's original form after all that.The simple answer is it couldn't survive unchanged.

How can you assume this? You have only offered what you believe to be conclusive proofs, although they are anything but conclusive. You are asking me how it could survive? I dunno, I wasn't there. I ask how can you assume the original is lost? or that the copies in today's world are altered in some manner? Being an atheist I would accept more conclusive proofs, since usually atheists make very direct demands regarding faith that they realize has no known answer. That is why the very thing is called faith

 

[MachineGod]

The New Testament is not part of the Torah

Since the word "Torah" means "a teaching", yes it could be included in the term. I merely referred to it in two different parts, you have a problem with that? I'll give it to you in something you can understand then...

The Torah actually has two sections, the Torah Shebiksav (the Written Torah) and the Torah Sheb’al Peh (the Oral Torah).

The Torah Shebiksav has three parts, the first of which is callled the Torah.

Torah: This is the part that was given directly to Moshe Rabbeinu at Mount Sinai by God. It is made up of five books. Each book is called a Chumash.

Nevi’im (Prophets), the second part, is made up of 19 books from the book of Joshua to the book of Malachi

Kesuvim (Writings) is the third part and contains the remainder of what is refered to in English as the Old Testament.

All three parts...Torah, Nevi'im, and Kesuvim are what is specifically called the Tanakh or Torah Shebiksav.

I said Tanakh and then included the New Testament to avoid any confusion. (Your Quran refers to New Testament Scripture as having authority as well) Your lack of knowledge caused confusion, when I thought that you, above all, should know that, and wouldn't be an issue. Apparently I was wrong and you don't know as much as you claim to. Torah means teachings which refers to all scripture.

2:136 Say ye: "We believe in Allah, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and that given to Moses and Jesus, and that given to (all) prophets from their Lord: We make no difference between one and another of them: And we bow to Allah (in Islam)."

I don't like this assumption. Reasoning:

1. The Torah is said to be given to Moses alone

2. David was given the Pslams which is part of the so called collective term "The Torah"

But regardless I'll ask a friend who is more knowledable of the arabic to inform me the specifics.

Well I believe I just cleared that up for you.

I said strongest

LoL, your strongest is pretty weak.

Those assumptions are to make your argument work....Except assumption one is merely an observation you haven't included in your argument, although you seem to believe this won't effect the outcome much if any.

So you are putting down the very assumptions that make your argument even considerable?

I have included it, and it isn't an assumption, as I have stated. Torah can refer to both the first five books, and the Tanakh...and as you have pointed out...even the New Testament, by definition of the word. What your trying to do is use that variance to say that is only refers to certain books that you can choose personally, rather than the complete text that you are saying is corrupt, even though the Quran gives authority to all the scriptures. My argument is that the Quran refers the the whole BIBLE ( is that a better word for you to understand?), while you are wanting to pick and choose. The pick and choose is what makes your "assumption 1" completely invalid, as I've stated. Understand now?

Your entire argument is about a faith related concept. If you don't wish to deal with faith, then don't bring faith related arguments to the table.

Wrong. My argument is based on the fact that the writings in the Quran state equality with the Bible. You are saying that the Bible is corrupt (which is contradictory to the writings you claim to follow) with no literature in the Quran to back it up in objective interpretation. I also say that if you provide such verses that it will only show an internal contradiction. As a result, I'm saying that your faith that the Quran is inerrant, is hypocritical. YOU are the one with the faith based arguments…or don’t you realize that?

Now if what you intended to say was let's look at the Qur'an for what it states and not from some baseless opinion of what it states then that's fine.

My, my...give the man a cigar.

Let me attempt to educate you on logic.

LOL…Oh Puullleeeaassee.

The Bible was around much longer than the Quran. The authors of the Quran had no doubt read the Bible...and you mean to tell me that it is not logical or reasonable that the Bible influenced the writings? Oh, I see, God must have gave him the writings without ever being influenced by the Bible...yes, that is much more logical.

Snowing, and being cold outside is a false comparison to what we are discussing. Here's a better one.

A - It's snowed outside.

B - There is a snowman in my yard.

------------

Therefore the snow was used to make a snowman.

SIMPLE logic.

It's all a matter of what identification you give the variables. You attempt to cite logic while defying it with faith.You think an invisible being told the authors what to write.

I'll address all of this and much more.

[font=&quot]I’m sure you will. I find it amusing how you took the time to make all these responses, but nothing of value to the argument, that you keep claiming you will address. I also noticed you ignored the verses I quoted from the Quran...make sure you address those.
[/font]

 

[Green Man]

How can you assume this? You have only offered what you believe to be conclusive proofs, although they are anything but conclusive. You are asking me how it could survive? I dunno, I wasn't there. I ask how can you assume the original is lost? or that the copies in today's world are altered in some manner? Being an atheist I would accept more conclusive proofs, since usually atheists make very direct demands regarding faith that they realize has no known answer. That is why the very thing is called faith

'Ibn Umar al-Khattab explicitly admits,

"Let no one of you say that he has aquired the entire Qur'an for how does he know that it is all?Much of the Qur'an has been lost,thus let him say,'I have aquired of it what is available"'(Suyuti:Itqan,part3,page72).


A'isha(also page 72) adds to the story of ibn Umar and says,

"During the time of the prophet,the chapter of the Parties used to be two hundred verses when read.When Uthman edited the copies of the Qur'an,only the current (verses) were recorded."(73verses)

The same statement is made by Ubay ibn Ka'b,one of the great companions.On page 72,part 3,the Suyuti says,


"This famous companion asked one of the Muslims,'How many verses in the chapter of the Parties?'He said,'Seventy two or seventy three verses.'He (Ubay) told him,'It used to be almost equal to the chapter of the Cow (about 286 verses) and included the verse of the stoning.'What is the verse of the stoning?'He said,'If an old man or woman committed adultery,stone them to death."'


Faith=believing in something when common sense tells you not to.

 

[ghazirizvi]

I have never heard of that book, Suyuti, I doubt it is authentic. If you qoute please go no further than Bukhari or Muslim (maybe even Tirmidhi) as the Hadith might not be authentic. A LOT (and i mean lot) of work went into the above mentioned books to ensure thier authenticity. There is a whole science of hadith, used to identify authentic hadith.

 

[humblemuslim]

'Ibn Umar al-Khattab explicitly admits,

"Let no one of you say that he has aquired the entire Qur'an for how does he know that it is all?Much of the Qur'an has been lost,thus let him say,'I have aquired of it what is available"'(Suyuti:Itqan,part3,page72).

This is honestly getting alittle ridiculus. So it appears you are willing to put your FAITH in this man's words. So then I believe we best terminate this specific discussion if we are merely going to clash based on faith related beliefs alone and not have any conclusive end.

"During the time of the prophet,the chapter of the Parties used to be two hundred verses when read.When Uthman edited the copies of the Qur'an,only the current (verses) were recorded."(73verses)

"This famous companion asked one of the Muslims,'How many verses in the chapter of the Parties?'He said,'Seventy two or seventy three verses.'He (Ubay) told him,'It used to be almost equal to the chapter of the Cow (about 286 verses) and included the verse of the stoning.'What is the verse of the stoning?'He said,'If an old man or woman committed adultery,stone them to death."'

Letme ask you something. Why are you so ready to put your faith in these Hadiths and yet you reject faith altogether. Seems to me your position is entirely hypocritical, UNLESS you are trying to use my faith agaisnt me, in which case you should realize muslims don't consider the Hadiths infallible and for good reason. So from my point of view you are just wasting your time.

And yes I do realize you have no faith in the Hadith, nor Qur'an, nor Bible, etc.

So I ask : Why even pose Hadiths for your points when not even I necessarily hold the ones you pose to be true? Personally I don't deal with Hadiths. The level of uncertainty even with a specific Hadiths authenticity usually is too high for even a worthwhile discussion.


peace


Anyways I thought this was a thread on alleged contradictions. How about we stay on topic. Hadith contradictions aren't relevant. If this topic is a concern of yours you are free to open another thread but I'd rather not discuss to no end this topic here.