Alleged Contradictions

[humblemuslim]

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)."

My lack of knowledge? Let's not get into ad-homenin attacks here. Let's stay on topic. I know very well the Injeel is described in the Qur'an, but you stated the Torah includes the New Testament which is Incorrect. The Injeel is listed serpeately (And also is not the New Testament, but this is an issue I'll discuss in detail later on).


Torah means "Teachings", so what? The Torah doesn't refer to ALL THE SCRIPTURES COLLECTIVELY! You are making irrational conclusions, Jesus's teachings and David's are mentioned seperately. Infact the Torah is mentioned along side the Injeel in several occasions. Therefore your conclusion is entire wild and incorrect.

LoL, your strongest is pretty weak.

Unbelievable. I'm speakless at your lack of understanding for what I've stated

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?

We need to slow down. You are getting ahead of yourself and I haven't even posted my complete argument. I'm just commenting here and there and you continue to repeat yourself.

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?

On the fact eh? I know that this "Fact" is false. What does that say about your argument? You'll just have to wait till I'm finished because this is getting in my opinion alittle silly and drawn out when infact the solution is rather easily seen.

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.

Nice baseless arguments. Infact I find it rather funny that you are using a common illogic (Fallacy of affirming the consequent) and calling it simple logic. This shows just how much you know about logic. I'm not sure whether I should be worried or amused.


I think my point has been made. There is no exclusivity to your argument. You make several baseless assumptions that are not necessarily true. Thus your conclusion is illogical.

 

[vajradhara]

Salaam HumbleMuslim,

thank you for the post.

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.

this does not seem to be the case with the European scientists that didn't rely on God for their understanding of the workings of things.

there is no way to measure Gods wisdom or knowledge, as such, using it for a measure of comparison is irrelevant, to my way of thinking.

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

has something changed in Al Qur'an that would make this information appear to be more "sophisticated" as time has gone by?

for instance, why does Al Qur'an not mention the Steady State theory of the universes' origins? why does it only talk about Rapid Inflationary theory? why does it not talk about the No Boundary Proposal?

 

[MachineGod]

My lack of knowledge? Let's not get into ad-homenin attacks here.

You come on here only to make comments, as if talking down to me, without offering anything of value to support your arguments and it's ME that is getting into the personal attacks? You need a reality check.

Let's stay on topic. I know very well the Injeel is described in the Qur'an, but you stated the Torah includes the New Testament which is Incorrect. The Injeel is listed serpeately (And also is not the New Testament, but this is an issue I'll discuss in detail later on).

Torah means "Teachings", so what? The Torah doesn't refer to ALL THE SCRIPTURES COLLECTIVELY!

I just described that the Torah has three parts. And I never said that the New Testament is usually considered part of the Torah, which is why I mentioned it separate from the Torah Shebiksav (Tanakh). You assumed I meant it was part of the Torah, and I said that because of the meaning of the word, it could be considered to include all of it. Yet it makes little difference, as the verse I posted, (the one you ignored) is one instance where the Quran gives authority to all of it, which is the only point I'm trying to make when I said Tanakh including the New Testament. Stop with your red-herring ****.

On the fact eh? I know that this "Fact" is false. What does that say about your argument? You'll just have to wait till I'm finished because this is getting in my opinion alittle silly and drawn out when infact the solution is rather easily seen.

If you know it's false and the solution is so easy, why don't you just say it? Your assertion that it's false says nothing about my argument. No need to get all ****ed just because you know I'm right.

Infact I find it rather funny that you are using a common illogic

Another red herring. The common fallacy is yours by appealing to ignorance (Absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence) (In reference to the Quran being derived from the Bible). And you do this through special pleading. (God did it). The simple logic is not always a fallacy, as even you have said. In some instances it is, but not this one. One need only read both of them to reasonably conclude one was derived from the other, unless you use special pleading.

This shows just how much you know about logic.

This coming from a man that believes in an invisible being. It's you that knows nothing my friend.

I think my point has been made.

No it hasn't. You didn't even come back here to post any valid point on the argument. You came here to attack me with your "commenting here and there", rather than the argument because you more than likely realize your wrong, and just can’t admit it even to yourself.

I have no further wish to debate with you. Have fun.

peace.

 

[ghazirizvi]

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

There is as I see it is no need for argument. Because you are not muslim (respectfully), that is your point of view, and it may seem justified. But what I believe you fail to realize is that niether book was derived from either. For a believing muslim the God who sent down the bible is the God who sent down the Quran. Naturally the message inherent in both books has to be the same. Furthermore muslims believe the Bible has been corrupted in some form or other throughout history (e.g. So many different versions of the Bible). So in the Quran when it claims equality to the Bible in one verse, it claims equality with the original Bible sent down by God (uncorrupted by humanity), furthermore the Quran has not been changed throughout history (a promise made by God). This is what I understood when I read the Quran and it presents no internal contradiction.

 

[MachineGod]

There is as I see it is no need for argument. Because you are not muslim (respectfully), that is your point of view, and it may seem justified. But what I believe you fail to realize is that niether book was derived from either. For a believing muslim the God who sent down the bible is the God who sent down the Quran. Naturally the message inherent in both books has to be the same.

Well, that's what all the internal and external contradictions and inconsistencies are about. Erroneous data shows either book did not come from a god...unless you feel he makes mistakes.

Furthermore muslims believe the Bible has been corrupted in some form or other throughout history (e.g. So many different versions of the Bible). So in the Quran when it claims equality to the Bible in one verse, it claims equality with the original Bible sent down by God (uncorrupted by humanity), .

And here is where it began. The versions are a red herring. Most Muslims believe the untranslated text has been corrupted, not just the many versions. With the many contradictions between the two works, and the belief that you follow with, that the Quran is uncorrupt leads you to the assumption that the Bible is corrupt. It's the only way for you to physiologically get past the irreconcilable contradictions between the two teachings.

furthermore the Quran has not been changed throughout history (a promise made by God). .

So we use circular logic, and special pleading. Funny, the Bible says the same thing.

And round and round we go, where we stop nobody knows.

I'm out

 

[ghazirizvi]

Well, that's what all the internal and external contradictions and inconsistencies are about. Erroneous data, shows either book did not come from a god...unless you feel he makes mistakes.

Erroneous data? Can you please provide some examples (except the one that "the Quran derived from the Bible yet claims the Bible is fasle", as that has already been talked about in my earlier post).

And here is where it began. The versions are a red herring. Most mulslims believe the untranslated text has been corrupted, not just the many versions. With the many contradictions between the two works, and the belief that you follow with, that the Quran is uncorrupt leads you to the assumption that the Bible is corrupt. It's the only way for you to phycologically get past the irreconsilable contradictions between the two teachings.

Im sorry but I dont understand the highlighted parts. Can you please clarify. And as for the fact that the muslims believe that the Quran is uncorrupt does not lead to the assumption that the Bible is corrupt. The assumption the Bible is corrupt, is lent from the fact that there are too many versions, many times each contradicting one another (how can the word of God contradict itself).

So we use circular logic, and special pleading. Funny, the Bible says the same thing.

Im not using circular logic. It is a well known fact that there exists only one version of the Quran (the same version revealed to the Prophet (SAW)). And as for the Bible I have never heard God make a promise in the Bible to keep it intact throughout history.

 

[humblemuslim]

this does not seem to be the case with the European scientists that didn't rely on God for their understanding of the workings of things.

there is no way to measure Gods wisdom or knowledge, as such, using it for a measure of comparison is irrelevant, to my way of thinking.

Scientist hardly have the explainations for everything. I think people of today's world have this idea that we are so advanced (Simply because past times were considerablely less advanced that we have recorded in history) but I hardly think what we have accomplished to be that great compared to how much is unknown in the universe. I mean some discoveries are quite amazing, from a certain point of view, yet there are numerous other things that humanity has been unable to answer.

Also I don't intend to measure God's wisdom, I was merely trying to get the point that humanity isn't as knowledgable of the universe as God is. As a more knowledgable being, infintely so according to faith, my analogy seems decent, although if over-analyzed will probably yield specific problems to direct applications.

has something changed in Al Qur'an that would make this information appear to be more "sophisticated" as time has gone by?

for instance, why does Al Qur'an not mention the Steady State theory of the universes' origins? why does it only talk about Rapid Inflationary theory? why does it not talk about the No Boundary Proposal?

I'm not sure what you are asking for...?? I need further clairfication here. Thanks


peace

 

[humblemuslim]

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.

The time I took to create these short replies were little breaks I had between classes and social life events I am basically obligated (Although enjoy doing) to do. I'm trying to make a long, detailed post that will deal with everything all at once and all together, but you continual make claims and commenting regardless of the fact that you know I'm working on this post. I'm not merely copy pasting from past work, I'm doing alot of work on this post. If you'd rather I post a copy/paste or make a horrible slapped together post I suggest you be patient. And I didn't ignore the verses, I did read them and have seen them before used in a similar argument. But what you are doing is hindering the real post because you are pressing small issues and continue to urge me to reply to bits and pieces.


Letme ask this: What would you rather?

I answer little questions here and there and get no where (Because you'll never see the big picture focusing on small answers to small problems)

Or

I answer everything all at once in a total complete form.


I've answered in pieces before, belive me it gets no where but leading to confusion. Especially when invalid presumptions are made.

 

[humblemuslim]

You come on here only to make comments, as if talking down to me, without offering anything of value to support your arguments and it's ME that is getting into the personal attacks? You need a reality check.

Is this how you feel? I am not talking down to you. If you feel this way, I'm afraid you have lowered yourself to myself. Education isn't a form of talking down to something.

Look you just ad-homenin again "You need a reality check"

Stop making this a personal matter.

Also you need to learn patience.

I just described that the Torah has three parts. And I never said that the New Testament is usually considered part of the Torah, which is why I mentioned it separate from the Torah Shebiksav (Tanakh). You assumed I meant it was part of the Torah, and I said that because of the meaning of the word, it could be considered to include all of it. Yet it makes little difference, as the verse I posted, (the one you ignored) is one instance where the Quran gives authority to all of it, which is the only point I'm trying to make when I said Tanakh including the New Testament. Stop with your red-herring ****.

My God....The Qur'an says otherwise. Do you not accept this? Or are you going to push this lie any further?

If you know it's false and the solution is so easy, why don't you just say it? Your assertion that it's false says nothing about my argument. No need to get all ****ed just because you know I'm right.

I never said it was short in explaination. Again with personal comments....

And more baseless assumptions about me, I'm noticing a rather distrubing pattern in the way you respond.

Patience. Learn it please.

Another red herring. The common fallacy is yours by appealing to ignorance (Absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence) (In reference to the Quran being derived from the Bible). And you do this through special pleading. (God did it). The simple logic is not always a fallacy, as even you have said. In some instances it is, but not this one. One need only read both of them to reasonably conclude one was derived from the other, unless you use special pleading.

Unbelievable. You have no concept of exclusivity in an arugment. Is your argument possible? From a certain point of view, yes. But certain? No. If you think otherwise you need more conclusive proof. Not the illogic you have offered up to this point.

This coming from a man that believes in an invisible being. It's you that knows nothing my friend.

Ad-homenin. Attack me all you like, my post still proves your ill-use of logic and labeling it "Simple Logic".

I never claimed you know nothing. But you seem completely unaware of the logic you use to be illogical.

No it hasn't. You didn't even come back here to post any valid point on the argument. You came here to attack me with your "commenting here and there", rather than the argument because you more than likely realize your wrong, and just can’t admit it even to yourself.

I have no further wish to debate with you. Have fun.

What debate? We haven't even started. I HAVE NOT EVEN POSTED MY ARGUMENT. I even told you it is going to take some time and yet you continue to pester me with numerous worthless repetitions of your first post.

Go ahead repeat yourself again. Maybe that will help me complete my post faster...Not!

 

[humblemuslim]

It is obvious you are not here to learn MachineGod. Regardless I will attempt to educate you on the matter of the alleged contradiction you pose. Maybe not so much for you, but for others on the forum with alittle more patience and respect towards others. Maybe I'm incorrect about you, but from what you've posted you some to be alittle less than kind towards me and for little reason. You continually have insulted me openly calling me a hypocritic among other things showing signs of hatred it seems.

peace!

 

[humblemuslim]

To all other viewers I apologize for the drawn out posts that have lead us alittle off topic. ASAP I will post the solution to the alleged contradiction MachineGod posted. Then of course we'll continue with our discussion.

Thanks everyone

peace

 

[humblemuslim]

I've made alot of progress on the post. I may very well be able to finish it tommorow. I'm nearly certain that even after I finish I'll have plenty of questions, which isn't a problem. But remember to be at least straight forward in your questions and not to be rude (As I am working rather hard on this and alittle faster than I at first intended due to the inpatience of a select few which I do not care to mention by name, even if it be but one person).


Peace

 

[Delta One]

Hi humblemuslim,

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.

There are too many uncertainities in this with too many unknowns to use this as a valid "contradiction". When I first posted, I wasn't quite sure of what a cubit was or how they measured it - so I did a Google search and found out and what I discovered amazed me.

The definition of a cubit: A Biblical unit of measurement, the distance from elbow to fingertip-approximately 18 inches, or half a meter.

Notice the word approximately. In fact, such a measuring device would be almost impossible to get it very accurate, and, over the distance (30 and 45 cubits) may have made up another cubit - which, what you said would give a value for Pi at 3.1. Given such systems of measurement, I am amazed that over the given distance, the value of Pi was 3! Also, the size of people's elbow to their fingertips can vary dramatically by centimetres or an inch or two.

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.

Thanks, it's just that no other Muslim has been bothered to say what their religion says about our origin. It sounds like you're a busy man.

Delta One.

 

[Green Man]

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.


It's impossible for anyone to live without faith.It's religious faith I have no use for.I have faith(I believe)the chair I'm sitting in won't collapse while I'm sitting here.I have faith(I believe)the sun will rise in the morning.








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.

I reject religious faith as I have said.How convenient that anything that doesn't corroborate the Qur'an has to be false and unworthy of any consideration or examination whatsoever,even from your own muslim scholars.

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.

If the Hadiths are not infalllible,why haven't they been done away with centuries ago?

Explain this if you can.
Qur'an 18:90 Till,when he reached the rising place of the Sun,he found it rising on a people for whom we had appointed no shelter from it.

Qur'an 18:86 Till,when he(the traveller Zul-qarnian) reached the setting place of the Sun,he found it going down into a muddy spring....

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4,Book 54,Number 421
Sahih Bukhari Hadiths:Abzur Ghifari (ra) narrated:one day Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) asked me,"Abzar do you know after setting where does sun go?" I replied,I do not know,only Allah's apostle can say better.Then Prophet (SA) replied,"After setting,the sun remains prostrated under Allah's Aro'sh and waits for Allah's command for rising again in the east.Day will come when sun will not get permission to rise again and Qeyamot will fall upon Earth".

A clear contradiction between the Qur'an and reality,verified by Bukhari.

 

[ghazirizvi]

If the Hadiths are not infalllible,why haven't they been done away with centuries ago?

Because Hadith are needed. For Example, the quran orders muslims to pray but it does not show us how to pray. The Hadith do. But we approach them with extreme caution.

 

[Iron Lion]

what if that hadith of prayer is wrong?

 

[humblemuslim]

what if that hadith of prayer is wrong?

This my view of Hadith. If the Hadith tells me to do something that is in agreement with the Qur'an and the Hadith is going into more detail (i.e. The form of Prayer) then it is a good Hadith to pay attention to. Next I'll ask myself "Does God really care about X if it is done differently" In the case of Prayer, I dont believe that the way Prayer is setup is some exclusive way that if not done the way outlined will not be accepted by God. The notion alone is silly. I rather look at the outlined Prayer steps as a guide and example of an acceptable and good Prayer.

If God wanted us to Prayer only one way exclusively it would have been mentioned step by step in the Qur'an. (And even just thinking about it will yield that the way you Prayer isn't entirely important within reason, being sincere is what is important)


If a Hadith contradicts the Qur'an, well enough said. The Qur'an has the final say so. If the Hadith mentions something not mentioned in the Qur'an (Either to the level of detail or maybe not at all) then you can accept it but you certainly have no obligation. The unverifable are things I don't tend to dabble with.

 

[ghazirizvi]

Thanks, it's just that no other Muslim has been bothered to say what their religion says about our origin. It sounds like you're a busy man.

Sorry others (myself included) havent replied yet. But origin of the Universe or of Man ?

 

[humblemuslim]

Explain this if you can.
Qur'an 18:90 Till,when he reached the rising place of the Sun,he found it rising on a people for whom we had appointed no shelter from it.

Qur'an 18:86 Till,when he(the traveller Zul-qarnian) reached the setting place of the Sun,he found it going down into a muddy spring....

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4,Book 54,Number 421
Sahih Bukhari Hadiths:Abzur Ghifari (ra) narrated:one day Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) asked me,"Abzar do you know after setting where does sun go?" I replied,I do not know,only Allah's apostle can say better.Then Prophet (SA) replied,"After setting,the sun remains prostrated under Allah's Aro'sh and waits for Allah's command for rising again in the east.Day will come when sun will not get permission to rise again and Qeyamot will fall upon Earth".

A clear contradiction between the Qur'an and reality,verified by Bukhari.

018.086YUSUFALI: 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: We said: "O Zul-qarnain! (thou hast authority,) either to punish them, or to treat them with kindness."
PICKTHAL: Till, when he reached the setting-place of the sun, he found it setting in a muddy spring, and found a people thereabout. We said: O Dhu'l-Qarneyn! Either punish or show them kindness.
SHAKIR: Until when he reached the place where the sun set, he found it going down into a black sea, and found by it a people. We said: O Zulqarnain! either give them a chastisement or do them a benefit.

This is basically saying he went East (Where the sun sets)…to some unnamed body of water with dark-blue waters(Deep, almost black) and found a group of people. The entire “the sun sets in a spring of murky water” thing that is said above is all from the point of view of the traveler.

“Until when he reached the land of the rising of the sun, he found it rising on a people to whom we had given no shelter from it” (18:90)

Again this refers to direction, not an actual point where the sun is either rising or falling. This is saying he went west (Where the sun rises) where he found another group of people.

There is no indication that the Qur'an claims the sun physically sets in a "Murky pool of water". If you take this interpertation literally to be true then the sun would be bouncing back and forth (Sometimes rising from the West, sometimes from the East). Any person, even back then, knew the sun always rose from the West. Taking the verse literally therefore is invalid.

Another thing to note is this is a tale, this is not God telling us "The Sun sets in a murky pool". There is a great difference between the two and how to interpert the two.

Hopefully this is a sufficent explaination.

peace

 

[humblemuslim]

Since an outline has been offered, I’ll just stick to it. So that I don’t get overwhelmed by this post (Or my readers) I’ll try to condense information as much as possible (Which may not be much in some cases). Also all Qur’an is from Yusufali’s translation. Why? Simply to condense space of the post and also it is easiest copied over from the online Qur’an I have access to. If further translations are needed they will be supplied.

Another important note to individuals who wish to comment on my composition. Please read the piece entirely before commenting. Simply commenting on a piece to piece basis will end up wasting my time, because more than likely several of your comments will be answers or addressed somewhere in the work. So I urge readers to read both parts I, II, and III before commenting on anything. Thanks.

Point #1 – The Qur’an is assumed inerrant

I do not intend to prove to you that the Qur’an is, as this would be a royal waste of time. Therefore I only offer the following as proof that our belief is one that is cited in the Qur’an:


004.082
YUSUFALI: Do they not consider the Qur'an (with care)? Had it been from other Than Allah, they would surely have found therein Much discrepancy.


Now you may argue discrepancies all you wish, but those alleged contradictions aside, this is supposed to be telling us that the Qur’an is from God.


010.037
YUSUFALI: This Qur'an is not such as can be produced by other than Allah; on the contrary it is a confirmation of (revelations) that went before it, and a fuller explanation of the Book - wherein there is no doubt - from the Lord of the worlds.


I’ll use this same verse later on, but for now you again notice a similar theme to the first sentence of this verse compared to 4:82.


015.009
YUSUFALI: We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption).


Qur’an is guarded by God from corruption.


002.002
YUSUFALI: This is the Book; in it is guidance sure, without doubt, to those who fear Allah;


The Qur’an is a sure guidance without doubt…Enough said

Need I quote more? It is clear the Qur’an is telling muslims to believe in the Qur’an as infallible, protected by God, from God and so forth. Now before I hear the often used “This is a circular argument” let me warn you now, I didn’t do all this with the intention of proving the Qur’an’s authenticity to you. I repeat once again, I’m merely proving that our faith is very noticeably stated throughout the Qur’an. It isn’t as if we pulled this out of thin air. Now that we know the Qur’an undoubtedly states the following mentioned above let’s move on.

(Please proceed to Part II. Due to the length of Point #2 it will have to be entirely Part II and even part of Part III. Thank you)