after five years, i left islam. here's one huge contradiction in the qur`an

[Crypto2015]

I watch it. What an interesting video. thanks.

Thanks to you, my friend.

 

[Crypto2015]

Because they thought its true.

Then why don't you believe it? Are you a greater Islamic scholar than them? Were you born just a few decades after Muhammad's death, like they were?

 

[firedragon]

Then why don't you believe it? Are you a greater Islamic scholar than them? Were you born just a few decades after Muhammad's death, like they were?

Because I believe in the Quran and what it says. I dont take anything that contradicts the Quran. And there is only one deity. Scholars, maulas, you or me are not deity.

Cheers.

Edit: There are many many more reasons.

 

[uncung]

Thanks to you, my friend.

ur welcome.

 

[Augustus]

This is a criterion that historians use. It is called the criterion of embarrassment. Based on this criterion, any historian would conclude the Satanic Verses event really happened. Plus, you have multiple highly reliable INDEPENDENT early sources for it. Hence, the Satanic Verses seems to fulfil very important criteria of historicity.

'Any historian' goes too far. It is a potential tool of course, but not an infallible one of one that requires no greater context.Many early theologians didn't see the incident as embarrassing, only later ones after particular views of Muhammed's infallability had developed.

For example, Ibn Taymiyyah:

This is similar to what 'A'ishah (may God be pleased with her!) said: "If the prophet had wanted to conceal any part of the Revelation, he would have concealed this verse: "And you concealed in yourself that which God was bringing to light and you feared the people when God is more to be feared".(25) Do you not think the person who seeks his own aggrandizement through falsehood would want to back up everything he says, even if it is wrong ? So the Prophet's proclaiming that God had established his aya-t and removed that which Satan cast is a yet greater proof of his striving for Veracity [taharrzr-hi li-'l-sgidq] and his innocence from lying. It is this that achieves the purpose of Messengership [hadhd huwa 'i-maqsiid bi- '-risalah],(26) for indeed he is the Truthful, the Veracious, which is why calling him a liar is, without doubt, sheer Unbelief. (S Ahmed - Ibn Taymiyyah and the Satanic verses)

The embarrassment that you rely on is much later in origin, so you can't really use it to demonstrate historicity, only that it is likely a tradition that is relatively early and had reasonably widespread acceptance as being genuine.

It's a bit like how the contradictions in the Bible 'embarrass' some modern Christians, yet were of absolutely no concern to those who complied the earliest Bibles. People in the past didn't necessarily always think the same as their ancestors or us today do.

In general, how accurate do you view the Sirah/hadith traditions as being?

 

[Augustus]

Then the Quran has to replace Zul Qarnain with Alexander.

It's just an epithet, as acknowledged by the likes of ibn Abbas. There are plenty of them in the Quran instead of real names.

Why don't you think it is Alexander? Who is it?

 

[firedragon]

It's just an epithet, as acknowledged by the likes of ibn Abbas. There are plenty of them in the Quran instead of real names.

Why don't you think it is Alexander? Who is it?

What does Dhul Qarnain mean?
And it is a dual plural. Qarnaini.

 

[uncung]

It's just an epithet, as acknowledged by the likes of ibn Abbas. There are plenty of them in the Quran instead of real names.

Why don't you think it is Alexander? Who is it?

What the quran and Hadith say abut Alexander ? did Alexander build the wall as quran describes?

 

[Crypto2015]

yes, but are their comments in accordance with what the quran states? Because if they said so then they definitely misunderstood the verse. The verse doesn't state the sun set in the pool of water

Al-Tabari is one of the best Islamic scholars of all time. Sahih Bukhari has a Hadith in which Muhammad explains that the Qur'an means exactly that: that the sun sinks into a pool of muddy water, literally. I can't even imagine a better way to prove that a book is not inspired by God. Even if Muhammad had said that the moon is made of cheese, that wouldn't have destroyed Islam more than what he said about the sun.

 

[Crypto2015]

Because I believe in the Quran and what it says. I dont take anything that contradicts the Quran. And there is only one deity. Scholars, maulas, you or me are not deity.

Cheers.

Edit: There are many many more reasons.

Even the Qur'an contains traces of the Satanic Verses. For example:

"Never have We sent a single prophet or apostle before you with whose wishes Satan did not tamper. But God abrogates the interjections of Satan and confirms His own revelations. God is all-knowing and wise. He makes Satan's interjections a temptation for those whose hearts are diseased, whose hearts are hardened ..." (Qur'an 22:52)

"They sought to entice you from Our revelations - they nearly did -hoping that you might invent some other scripture in Our name, and thus become their trusted friend. Indeed had we not strengthened your faith, you might have made some compromise with them and thus incurred a double punishment in this life and in the next. Then you should have found none to help you against Us." (Qur'an 17:73-75)

According to the earliest biographical material about Muhammad, these verses were "revealed" after the Satanic Verses episode.

 

[Crypto2015]

'Any historian' goes too far. It is a potential tool of course, but not an infallible one of one that requires no greater context.Many early theologians didn't see the incident as embarrassing, only later ones after particular views of Muhammed's infallability had developed.

For example, Ibn Taymiyyah:

This is similar to what 'A'ishah (may God be pleased with her!) said: "If the prophet had wanted to conceal any part of the Revelation, he would have concealed this verse: "And you concealed in yourself that which God was bringing to light and you feared the people when God is more to be feared".(25) Do you not think the person who seeks his own aggrandizement through falsehood would want to back up everything he says, even if it is wrong ? So the Prophet's proclaiming that God had established his aya-t and removed that which Satan cast is a yet greater proof of his striving for Veracity [taharrzr-hi li-'l-sgidq] and his innocence from lying. It is this that achieves the purpose of Messengership [hadhd huwa 'i-maqsiid bi- '-risalah],(26) for indeed he is the Truthful, the Veracious, which is why calling him a liar is, without doubt, sheer Unbelief. (S Ahmed - Ibn Taymiyyah and the Satanic verses)

The embarrassment that you rely on is much later in origin, so you can't really use it to demonstrate historicity, only that it is likely a tradition that is relatively early and had reasonably widespread acceptance as being genuine.

It's a bit like how the contradictions in the Bible 'embarrass' some modern Christians, yet were of absolutely no concern to those who complied the earliest Bibles. People in the past didn't necessarily always think the same as their ancestors or us today do.

In general, how accurate do you view the Sirah/hadith traditions as being?

Ibn Taymiyyah knew that the episode was very embarrassing for Muhammad. Muhammad committed shirk, the only sin that according to Islam can never be forgiven. Consequently, Ibn Taymiyyah, not being able to deny this serious incident, tried to show Muhammad as a pious man by asserting that if Muhammad weren't honest he would have concealed something as embarrassing as the Satanic Verses incident. The whole point, actually, is that the Satanic Verses incident IS embarrassing. Extremely embarrassing. Also, Muhammad would have concealed this incident if he had been able to do it, but since he pronounced the Satanic Verses before many of his followers and many of the pagans, it was impossible for him to conceal what he had done.

Early sources + Trustworthy sources + Multiple independent attestations + Criterion of embarrassment = Very trustworthy material.

 

[firedragon]

"Never have We sent a single prophet or apostle before you with whose wishes Satan did not tamper. But God abrogates the interjections of Satan and confirms His own revelations. God is all-knowing and wise. He makes Satan's interjections a temptation for those whose hearts are diseased, whose hearts are hardened ..." (Qur'an 22:52)

How do you deem that to be a 'satanic verse'? It says God abolishes deviance. Shayatheena.

"They sought to entice you from Our revelations - they nearly did -hoping that you might invent some other scripture in Our name, and thus become their trusted friend. Indeed had we not strengthened your faith, you might have made some compromise with them and thus incurred a double punishment in this life and in the next. Then you should have found none to help you against Us." (Qur'an 17:73-75)

Read two verses earlier.
The Day We call every people by their beacon. Then, whoever are given their book by their right, they will read their book, and they will not be wronged in the least.

Read their book. .....

This is addressing you and I. The reader. Even if you want it to address the prophet still it stands.

You are not to deviate from your scripture. The Quran. There is no compromise. "Some other scripture in our name" means associate some other scripture, external documents, narrations, stories and claim that its from God, "In our name". Our is pluralis majestatis. No compromise, do not take other documents and claim Godls name to it.

Early sources + Trustworthy sources + Multiple independent attestations + Criterion of embarrassment = Very trustworthy material.

Cant you see plainly that verse doesnt have anything to do with anything satanic?

The sources you trust so much have been written centuries later. It is what you call post hoc rationalisation. If you want to follow them, so be it. But if you have intellect, reflect.

 

[firedragon]

Ibn Taymiyyah knew that the episode was very embarrassing for Muhammad. Muhammad committed shirk, the only sin that according to Islam can never be forgiven. Consequently, Ibn Taymiyyah, not being able to deny this serious incident, tried to show Muhammad as a pious man by asserting that if Muhammad weren't honest he would have concealed something as embarrassing as the Satanic Verses incident. The whole point, actually, is that the Satanic Verses incident IS embarrassing. Extremely embarrassing. Also, Muhammad would have concealed this incident if he had been able to do it, but since he pronounced the Satanic Verses before many of his followers and many of the pagans, it was impossible for him to conceal what he had done.

Early sources + Trustworthy sources + Multiple independent attestations + Criterion of embarrassment = Very trustworthy material.

What early, trustworthy, multiple independent attested very trustworthy material do you trust to be infallible and true regarding this matter?

 

[Crypto2015]

What early, trustworthy, multiple independent attested very trustworthy material do you trust to be infallible and true regarding this matter?

I already mentioned the sources: Ibn Ishaq, Al-Tabari, Al-Wakidi, and Ibn Sa'd. They didn't live hundreds of years after Muhammad. Wakidi's works are among the most ancient in Islamic history.

 

[firedragon]

The problem lies in bias assessment of a story found on the internet and being completely blind to any exegeses. A bit of human intellect used in an analysis would be much preferred, then someone can explain the logical reasoning behind interpretations of these stories. Let us try. My argument will not be Isma which I also believe is a valid point stated in the Quran.

According to Ibn Masuds narration the Surah 53 (which was recited by the prophet during the so called satanic intervention happened) was revealed in the 5th year.
Then the verse that abrogates this was revealed in the 10th year.

• God waited so many years to send the verse that abrogates a satanic intervention? Since you dont actually believe that God revealed the Quran, would the prophet after knowing that he was interrupted and deviated by satan wait 5 years to correct the notion and pledge that it would never happen again?

This incident happened while he was reciting the 20th verse chapter 53. Abrogation happened in the 17th chapter 73-75. That is 1,721 verses later.

• God revealed 1,721 verses in between a satanic intervention and his verse on abolishing satans intervention? So the prophet narrated 1,721 verses and 27 surahs to clear his name? The whole Quran has 114 Surahs and 6,236. So he went through 27% of his Quran narrating lifetime before he cleared his name? Who would have trusted him. According to the same stories his followers grew immensely during that time. Would they have?

The man deemed most influential individual in history by Hart, the writer of the Quran, the mover of a huge empire. This story is utter forgery.

Check the beginning of the Surah. "Your friend was not astray, nor was he deceived". The prophet Muhammed recites a surah which has a beginning that says he was not deceived nor led astray. Also check the next verses after the so called satanic intervention, it immediately says that these false deities are lies and man made.

These are but names/attributes that you made up, you and your forefathers. God never authorized such.

If the prophet recited some verses that the Qurayshi liked, he immediately in the next verse has thrown it to the wall. You serious?

This is only one aspect.

Also consider that Bukhari collected over a hundred thousand stories and filtered them based on authenticity and duplicity etc. This story did not reach him. In fact, it did not reach anyone of the so called canonical ahadith collections. The mutthasil is so weak its not even closely considered Daif. Lo and behold, the non muslims find it very authentic.

Nonsense.

Alright, you believe Muhammed received some satanic verses and he later abolished them. You believe that was the only satanic verse? Or is there a few more. If you believe them to be satanic, do you believe all other verses are from God? If not who narrated those verses? If you say Muhammed narrated by his own hand, then why do you believe only one verse was narrated by the Satan? If you believe all of it was narrated by satan why do you stress on dubious information to prove only one was? Why do you call only that satanic verses?

Hypocrisy much??

 

[Augustus]

What the quran and Hadith say abut Alexander ? did Alexander build the wall as quran describes?

Yes.

According to the neshana anyway.

 

[Augustus]

What does Dhul Qarnain mean?
And it is a dual plural. Qarnaini.

I'm not to fussed what it means in Arabic, the narrative still matches the Syriac Neshana.

I'd go with the 2 horned one, but it's not like the similarities are dependent on some grammatical form.

Do you think the story is different?

 

[firedragon]

Yes.

According to the neshana anyway.

Your point is that Muhammed copied from the Neshana?

 

[Augustus]

Your point is that Muhammed copied from the Neshana?

I'm happy to go with 'responded to', I'm not big on the 'copied' narrative.

 

[firedragon]

I'm not to fussed what it means in Arabic, the narrative still matches the Syriac Neshana.

I'd go with the 2 horned one, but it's not like the similarities are dependent on some grammatical form.

Do you think the story is different?

It has similarities, but two small and so different to say it was copied from either. He builds a gate against the north wind to evade Hunayes invasion (Edited to add "In the Neshana"). Quran talks about east and west. Of course Quran is not explicit about anything in that while the Neshana is. It goes on to talk about the defeat of the Persian king.

Also too close of a timeline. If the time of the Neshana is correct (Estimated earliest 629) then the chapter 18 of the Quran was narrated during the exact same time. Probably a year or two earlier than 629. But that is according to tradition in ahadith.

You cant make an academic conclusion, you can only make an assertion.

Its actually not Zul karnayn as everyone thinks, its Zul karnayni. Which means leader or possessor of two generations. karnayni is a plural. Errm, a dual. Like Rakathayni.

Karnayni means two generations. Everywhere in the Quran this word has been translated as Karnin, Kuroonan, a generation, and plural (generations), only karnayni, the dual form has been not translated. Whats funny is that they have changed karnayni to karnayn to sound like a name rather than the dual form of karnin.