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

[firedragon]

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

Got it.

 

[uncung]

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.

How could he became a best scholar yet his idea was wrong? the quran doesn't state the sun set in the pool of water, meanwhile Thabari said the different thing. so which one should we take into account? Quran or Thabari's?

 

[uncung]

Yes.

According to the neshana anyway.

Does Neshana state that Zul Qarnain was Alexander?

 

[uncung]

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.

Yes, but according to that verse above, Q 22:52, Allah abrogated the interjections of Satan and confirmed His own revelations.

 

[uncung]

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.

Prophet had never committed shirk.

 

[Sabour]

I'm not God. There is no contradiction. What I believe and what God knows aren't always the same.

At some point you were positive that I won't become a christian to prove your point and argument, at other point you were saying that you wouldn't know if that is true to confirm your beliefs. That is in deed a contradiction.

Why does anyone keep things hidden, or covered? Why are Muslim women commanded to cover their heads in public, but not in private while with their husbands?

I am asked you about teaching something in private and why would Jesus peace be upon him do that and you answered by asking me why do women cover up. There is no relation whatsoever between the two cases.

Totally different

Free will is incompatible with monotheism. Period.

Free will in the sense that you have the freedom to choose under the will of God is not incompatible with monotheism. Period.

On the other hand, believing in the trinity is incompatible with monotheism.

 

[firedragon]

Does Neshana state that Zul Qarnain was Alexander?

Of course not. There are small similarities in the two narratives but huge differences.

 

[firedragon]

Yes, but according to that verse above, Q 22:52, Allah abrogated the interjections of Satan and confirmed His own revelations.

The actual abrogation is in chapter 17. Actually its more than abrogation. Rather its abolishing.

 

[uncung]

Of course not. There are small similarities in the two narratives but huge differences.

certainly.

 

[firedragon]

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.

Alright. Lets take one by one for deeper discussion.

Your first and oldest source is Ibn Ishaq. I say he never narrated or even repeated this story. How could you prove otherwise?

 

[uncung]

The actual abrogation is in chapter 17. Actually its more than abrogation. Rather its abolishing.

At least the God who abrogated it.

 

[Crypto2015]

Alright. Lets take one by one for deeper discussion.

Your first and oldest source is Ibn Ishaq. I say he never narrated or even repeated this story. How could you prove otherwise?

Ibn Isḥaq collected oral traditions about the life of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. These traditions, which he orally dictated to his pupils,[8] are now known collectively as Sīratu Rasūli l-Lāh (Arabic: سيرة رسول الله‎‎ "Life of the Messenger of God") and survive mainly in the following sources:

• An edited copy, or recension, of his work by his student al-Bakka'i, which was further edited by ibn Hisham. Al-Bakka'i's work has perished and only ibn Hisham's has survived, in copies.[10]
• An edited copy, or recension, prepared by his student Salamah ibn Fadl al-Ansari. This also has perished, and survives only in the copious extracts to be found in the voluminous History of the Prophets and Kings by Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari.[10][11]
• Fragments of several other recensions. Guillaume lists them on p. xxx of his preface, but regards most of them as so fragmentary as to be of little worth.
  
  
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Ishaq

 

[Crypto2015]

Prophet had never committed shirk.

He worshipped three goddesses during the Satanic Verses incident.

 

[Crypto2015]

How could he became a best scholar yet his idea was wrong? the quran doesn't state the sun set in the pool of water, meanwhile Thabari said the different thing. so which one should we take into account? Quran or Thabari's?

The Qur'an and Al Tabari agree with each other: the sun sets in a pool of murky water. The ridiculousness of this assertion wasn't a problem for the early Islamic scholars because at that time science hadn't yet proven that the assertion is wrong.

 

[YmirGF]

The Qur'an and Al Tabari agree with each other: the sun sets in a pool of murky water. The ridiculousness of this assertion wasn't a problem for the early Islamic scholars because at that time science hadn't yet proven that the assertion is wrong.

Oh shush, they don't really want to talk about this. What you are saying is rather obvious. That was what got me going about Islam so many years ago... it wasn't what they said, it was that they had no problems saying what they said.... if you follow what I am meaning...

 

[uncung]

The Qur'an and Al Tabari agree with each other: the sun sets in a pool of murky water. The ridiculousness of this assertion wasn't a problem for the early Islamic scholars because at that time science hadn't yet proven that the assertion is wrong.

Not it doesn't. Balagha magriba syamsa means: reached the place in the direction of the sun was seen in the west at the Magrib time. Quran simply uses two words to express it: Magriba syamsa.
Many verses use Magrib. and it always means : west.

How ever, the next verse indeed states: he found it sinks (tagrubu) in the pool of murky.
In this verse quran describes the vision of Zul Qarnain as the observer instead of the idea of Quran. Underline: he found.

 

[uncung]

He worshipped three goddesses during the Satanic Verses incident.

prove it.

 

[YmirGF]

prove it.

My own guess it this is where the rubber hits the road, as it were.

I'm not prone to prediction, but I do envison a spectacular fail............

 

[Augustus]

Does Neshana state that Zul Qarnain was Alexander?

No. Dhool just does the same things in the same order that Alexander does.

The full title is 'an exploit (neshana) of Alexander, the son of Philip the Macedonian, how he went forth to the ends of the world and made a gate of iron and shut it in the face of the north wind, that the Hunaye might not come forth to plunder the lands.'

Of course not. There are small similarities in the two narratives but huge differences.

Dhool goes to the ends of the world and finds the sun setting near fetid water and mentions punishing wrongdoers, then he follows the path of the sun to where it rises and meets people oppressed by the lack of shade, then builds a big wall to keep out Gog and Magog.

Alexander goes to the ends of the world, punishes evildoers by making them walk into the fetid sea near where the sun sets, follows the sun to where it rises and meets people who are oppressed by the heat of the sun, then builds a wall to keep out Gog and Magog.

The differences are that the Neshana is longer and contains things that the Quran doesn't. Dhool pretty much does nothing that Alexander doesn't do.

There are huge similarities and small differences.

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.

Of course you can make an academic conclusion, here are 2 of them:

"The prophecy of Ḏū-l-Qarnayn (Q 18:83-102) and the Origins of the Qurʾānic Corpus". Miscellanea arabica 2013–2014: 273-90.

Ch 8 The Alexander Legend in the Qur’an 18:83–102

In history, an academic conclusion is based on evidence presented and rarely gets to the level of 100% undeniable fact, more balance of probabilities. In this case, the balance of probabilities is pretty strong that the 2 narratives are related.

Due to its likely role as Heraclian propaganda regarding the retaking of Jerusalem and concurrent presentation of Heraclius as the 'new Alexander', the Neshana is pretty easy to date. Which makes the Quranic verse one of the easiest to date also.

My personal opinion is that Muhammed's community contained many people who were formerly closely aligned with the Roman Army, and even if that was not true then Arabia was hardly isolated. The story was well known in Muhammed's environment and so it came to be used by the Quran's author for its own rhetorical reasons. The close timelines support the connection between the 2 stories rather than make them less likely.

The surah contains 3 stories - all of which reflect contemporary traditions in Muhammed's environment. The first is the 7 sleepers of Ephasus, the 2nd about Musa "may be traced back to three main sources: the Gilgames̲h̲ epic, the Alexander romance and the Jewish legend of Elijah and Rabbi Joshua ben Levi. The two first are, of course, again closely related to one another; at the same time it should be noted that the fish episode is lacking in the epic and is only found in the romance" (Wensinck, A.J., “al-K̲h̲aḍir (al-K̲h̲iḍr)”, in: Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition, interesting article if you don't have access use sci-hub to unlock it) and the 3rd is Dhool Q.

The Quran even acknowledges that they are well known stories "They will question thee concerning...."

It is clear that the Quran frequently uses religious and para-religious stories that existed in the late antique ME, and rhetorically rearticulates them to make a new text. This is hardly surprising as you need to tell people stories that they can relate to.

 

[uncung]

No. Dhool just does the same things in the same order that Alexander does.

The full title is 'an exploit (neshana) of Alexander, the son of Philip the Macedonian, how he went forth to the ends of the world and made a gate of iron and shut it in the face of the north wind, that the Hunaye might not come forth to plunder the lands.'



Dhool goes to the ends of the world and finds the sun setting near fetid water and mentions punishing wrongdoers, then he follows the path of the sun to where it rises and meets people oppressed by the lack of shade, then builds a big wall to keep out Gog and Magog.

Alexander goes to the ends of the world, punishes evildoers by making them walk into the fetid sea near where the sun sets, follows the sun to where it rises and meets people who are oppressed by the heat of the sun, then builds a wall to keep out Gog and Magog.

The differences are that the Neshana is longer and contains things that the Quran doesn't. Dhool pretty much does nothing that Alexander doesn't do.

There are huge similarities and small differences.



Of course you can make an academic conclusion, here are 2 of them:

"The prophecy of Ḏū-l-Qarnayn (Q 18:83-102) and the Origins of the Qurʾānic Corpus". Miscellanea arabica 2013–2014: 273-90.

Ch 8 The Alexander Legend in the Qur’an 18:83–102

In history, an academic conclusion is based on evidence presented and rarely gets to the level of 100% undeniable fact, more balance of probabilities. In this case, the balance of probabilities is pretty strong that the 2 narratives are related.

Due to its likely role as Heraclian propaganda regarding the retaking of Jerusalem and concurrent presentation of Heraclius as the 'new Alexander', the Neshana is pretty easy to date. Which makes the Quranic verse one of the easiest to date also.

My personal opinion is that Muhammed's community contained many people who were formerly closely aligned with the Roman Army, and even if that was not true then Arabia was hardly isolated. The story was well known in Muhammed's environment and so it came to be used by the Quran's author for its own rhetorical reasons. The close timelines support the connection between the 2 stories rather than make them less likely.

The surah contains 3 stories - all of which reflect contemporary traditions in Muhammed's environment. The first is the 7 sleepers of Ephasus, the 2nd about Musa "may be traced back to three main sources: the Gilgames̲h̲ epic, the Alexander romance and the Jewish legend of Elijah and Rabbi Joshua ben Levi. The two first are, of course, again closely related to one another; at the same time it should be noted that the fish episode is lacking in the epic and is only found in the romance" (Wensinck, A.J., “al-K̲h̲aḍir (al-K̲h̲iḍr)”, in: Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition, interesting article if you don't have access use sci-hub to unlock it) and the 3rd is Dhool Q.

The Quran even acknowledges that they are well known stories "They will question thee concerning...."

It is clear that the Quran frequently uses religious and para-religious stories that existed in the late antique ME, and rhetorically rearticulates them to make a new text. This is hardly surprising as you need to tell people stories that they can relate to.

Then it is concluded that Zul Qarnain was not Alexander.