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

[Augustus]

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.

You are using classical Islamic theology to discuss factual history. This classical theology developed over many centuries for specific purposes, none of which were recording history as accurately and objectively as possible (which is a relatively modern discipline).

All Muslims now believe it is false, why didn't this occur in the 500 years between the event and Ibn Taymiyyah's lifetime?

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

The sources are late, untrustworthy, possibly derived from a common source, and didn't necessarily meet the criterion of embarrassment until centuries after the fact.

Your view requires the belief that the Sirah is pretty much correct. Although you don't believe the Divine aspects, you accept the events, characters and motivations as being pretty much correct. Is this accurate regarding your beliefs?

(I personally believe this view is untenable from an academic perspective)

 

[Augustus]

Then it is concluded that Zul Qarnain was not Alexander.

Did you really just make this argument?

"And based on the clear presence of many precise, obvious similarities we can easily conclude that the 2 stories have no connection to each other whatsoever..."

 

[Sleeppy]

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.





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 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.

1) Actually, no. It isn't a contradiction. My certainty isn't equal to God's certainty. I suggest you not err toward blasphemy in suggesting anything otherwise.

2) When I illustrate an analogy between the two cases in detail, you have have no further option to deny that analogy/relation, without reason.

3) Belief in free will is not monotheism. Period.

You are not able to suggest that you yourself choose righteousness. Righteousness is given by the Source of righteousness, that is, the Most High. But you blaspheme in believing that you are the source of your own righteousness. You blaspheme in believing that you chose Him who chooses. You blaspheme in believing that you decide, in place of Him who decides all things without challenge. And yet, Satan laughs by your side saying, "Associate no one with Allah. His sons, the sons of men, are not His." Satan laughs, because instead of knowing that you are the son of God, you place yourself equal to God.

You decide nothing. You own nothing. All power belongs to the Most High. Period.

 

[Sabour]

1) Actually, no. It isn't a contradiction. My certainty isn't equal to God's certainty. I suggest you not err toward blasphemy in suggesting anything otherwise.

2) When I illustrate an analogy between the two cases in detail, you have have no further option to deny that analogy/relation, without reason.

3) Belief in free will is not monotheism. Period.

You are not able to suggest that you yourself choose righteousness. Righteousness is given by the Source of righteousness, that is, the Most High. But you blaspheme in believing that you are the source of your own righteousness. You blaspheme in believing that you chose Him who chooses. You blaspheme in believing that you decide, in place of Him who decides all things without challenge. And yet, Satan laughs by your side saying, "Associate no one with Allah. His sons, the sons of men, are not His." Satan laughs, because instead of knowing that you are the son of God, you place yourself equal to God.

You decide nothing. You own nothing. All power belongs to the Most High. Period.

Regarding your last line, I can choose to reply with one line, two lines, three lines, or I can choose not to reply at all. See how I am free to choose within the capabilities given by God? Don't make it sound like I am saying I can absolutely do anything I want. That is not what I am saying.

WE DON'T, AND WILL NEVER PLACE OURSELVES EQUAL TO GOD.

If that is what you think, you really have not the slightest idea about Islam. Sorry to say that.

 

[Sleeppy]

Regarding your last line, I can choose to reply with one line, two lines, three lines, or I can choose not to reply at all. See how I am free to choose within the capabilities given by God? Don't make it sound like I am saying I can absolutely do anything I want. That is not what I am saying.

WE DON'T, AND WILL NEVER PLACE OURSELVES EQUAL TO GOD.

If that is what you think, you really have not the slightest idea about Islam. Sorry to say that.

You say that you do anything WHATSOEVER, apart from God's will, and you are a polytheist. An autolater. You don't have to believe you can do whatever you want. You blaspheme in taking any credit WHATSOEVER for your being; for your being of will. You are not the Creator of all things; you create no will of your own. You believe according to Allah's insurmountable will, whether you be a liar and murderer, or a teacher and a keeper of your brothers.

 

[Sabour]

You say that you do anything WHATSOEVER, apart from God's will, and you are a polytheist. An autolater. You don't have to believe you can do whatever you want. You blaspheme in taking any credit WHATSOEVER for your being; for your being of will. You are not the Creator of all things; you create no will of your own. You believe according to Allah's insurmountable will, whether you be a liar and murderer, or a teacher and a keeper of your brothers.

18:23
And never say of anything, "Indeed, I will do that tomorrow,"

18:24
Except [when adding], "If Allah wills." And remember your Lord when you forget [it] and say, "Perhaps my Lord will guide me to what is nearer than this to right conduct."


I rest my case.

 

[Sleeppy]

18:23
And never say of anything, "Indeed, I will do that tomorrow,"

18:24
Except [when adding], "If Allah wills." And remember your Lord when you forget [it] and say, "Perhaps my Lord will guide me to what is nearer than this to right conduct."


I rest my case.

This enforces the case that I've been presenting. But, the other problems still remain.

If you are able to rest, let it be because the Lord did indeed guide you to what is nearer to the truth: that Allah is an insurmountable will; the Most High. And just as there are no other gods beside Him, let no one claim that the Creator judges His creation, as if ignorant of creation. Let everyone, including yourself, rest in the fact that Allah knows all things, and therefore leaves judgement to them who start from ignorance of the Creator's insurmountable will.

 

[anonymous9887]

one, yesterday i discovered that in the qur`an, chapter 11 verse 1 states that the verses are perfected and explained in detail, but all of chapter 111 is clearly about muhammad wanting revenge on his uncle and her wife. the entire message of the qur`an would be benefited without that chapter. how are those perfected verses?

two, even if you believe it's supposed to be hard to understand (which makes no sense because that can cause huge amounts of misinterpretation and chaos), that is still not explanation in detail, therefore it also makes the qur`an imperfect and completely contradicts chapter 11 verse 1.

three, it's as if people thought muhammad's complaints about family were teachings and added it into the qur`an. also, these are things that people believed muhammad said sorted out by people other than muhammad. if this chapter is in there, that further destroys its credibility.

four (as asked on page 6), why are the famous mysterious letters (i.e. alif lam ra) added into the qur`an with no explanation for them? and if they weren't in the actual qur`an, then a huge part of the world has been misguided by this. this contradicts chapter 11 verse 1

there are so many verses in the qur`an that are extremely hard to understand. and if you say it wasn't talking about every verse, then that would make chapter 11 verse 1 contradict even itself.

i do still however follow God. just with no religion.

Well look at it this way:
1. Not a single manuscripts of the 5 that have authority are complete.
2. Not one manuscript is alike, they all vary.
3. The earliest fragment of course is just that a fragment.
4. But all are written long after uthman

 

[uncung]

Well look at it this way:
1. Not a single manuscripts of the 5 that have authority are complete.
2. Not one manuscript is alike, they all vary.
3. The earliest fragment of course is just that a fragment.
4. But all are written long after uthman

so what is the problem then?

 

[anonymous9887]

so what is the problem then?

The Qur'ans writings are not reliable.

 

[uncung]

The Qur'ans writings are not reliable.

Why is it not reliable?

 

[firedragon]

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

I say he never narrated or even repeated this story. How could you prove otherwise?

 

[firedragon]

Of course you can make an academic conclusion,

That is not a conclusion.

Mate. I have read these studies. They are not conclusive. Just because one says I conclude, that is not a conclusion. Then there are others who concluded that the Dhul Qarnaini in the Quran is Cyrus. And did you even consider the fact that that has a meaning and its dual? Also that Neshana could very well have been written after the Quran? Who took from whom? Have you read the Neshana? You can assert, you cant conclude.

Well. We can believe what we want.

Peace.

 

[firedragon]

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.

Tabari also says the earth rests on a large fish.

Anyways, regarding the so called satanic interruption, I will cut and paste an older post again. If you wish to believe in some story said to be told by someone thats your wish. But we can use logic and common sense.

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]

That is not a conclusion.

A conclusion is a part of an argument that is supported by at least one premise. It's simply a statement supported by evidence. This conclusion is supported by numerous premises.

A conclusion can be 100% wrong. That something is a conclusion doesn't mean that it has been proven or cannot be rejected.

Mate. I have read these studies. They are not conclusive. Just because one says I conclude, that is not a conclusion. Then there are others who concluded that the Dhul Qarnaini in the Quran is Cyrus. And did you even consider the fact that that has a meaning and its dual? Also that Neshana could very well have been written after the Quran? Who took from whom? Have you read the Neshana? You can assert, you cant conclude.

Basically nothing from ancient history can be proved, but unless the entire study of history is pointless, then we can certainly make reasoned conclusions on it. They almost always relate to balance of probabilities though, as any credible historian will acknowledge.

This example has a good balance of probabilities as it is part of a larger context. The Alexander Romance has a clear Christian context including Gog and Magog. The Neshana was influential at the time as it is the source for later Christian writings. It fits a clear rhetorical purpose in regard to political events of the time. Other names lack this context, and only started being proposed after Alexander was deemed theologically 'problematic'.

We also have a chapter in the Quran that contains a clear reflection of the Sleepers of Ephesus, a story about Moses that can arguably (although with much less certainty) be related to a Christian story, and Dhool Q - "and they ask you about..."

It can never be proved which one was written first, but given the context, it is far more likely that the Neshana was first, and the Quran contains a rhetorical reworking of this, just as it does with the sleepers and numerous other contemporary religious narratives.

We already know that the Quran contains often features (putatively Divinely revealed) rhetorical discussion of contemporary religious issues, one more would hardly be out of place.

Well. We can believe what we want.

True dat.

 

[firedragon]

A conclusion is a part of an argument that is supported by at least one premise. It's simply a statement supported by evidence. This conclusion is supported by numerous premises.

A conclusion can be 100% wrong. That something is a conclusion doesn't mean that it has been proven or cannot be rejected.




Basically nothing from ancient history can be proved, but unless the entire study of history is pointless, then we can certainly make reasoned conclusions on it. They almost always relate to balance of probabilities though, as any credible historian will acknowledge.

This example has a good balance of probabilities as it is part of a larger context. The Alexander Romance has a clear Christian context including Gog and Magog. The Neshana was influential at the time as it is the source for later Christian writings. It fits a clear rhetorical purpose in regard to political events of the time. Other names lack this context, and only started being proposed after Alexander was deemed theologically 'problematic'.

We also have a chapter in the Quran that contains a clear reflection of the Sleepers of Ephesus, a story about Moses that can arguably (although with much less certainty) be related to a Christian story, and Dhool Q - "and they ask you about..."

It can never be proved which one was written first, but given the context, it is far more likely that the Neshana was first, and the Quran contains a rhetorical reworking of this, just as it does with the sleepers and numerous other contemporary religious narratives.

We already know that the Quran contains often features (putatively Divinely revealed) rhetorical discussion of contemporary religious issues, one more would hardly be out of place.



True dat.

If you insist.

 

[firedragon]

It can never be proved which one was written first, but given the context, it is far more likely that the Neshana was first,

Curious to know why!

 

[Augustus]

Curious to know why!

a) The Quran itself alludes to the story being well known 'and they ask you about Dhool...' (the preceding narrative is also arguably [but also arguably not] linked to Alexander)

b) The Neshana is Heraclian propaganda and was well known in the region and integrated into a broader Alexander literary tradition that both pre and post-dates the Quran.

c) Even if the Neshana didn't exist, Dhool would be identifiable as Alexander

d) The Quran was not well known at the time outside of Muhammed's community.

e) There is no broader DQ literary tradition

f) Why would a Syriac Christian rework and greatly expand an obscure Quranic pericope as a piece of imperial propaganda?

g) The Quran frequently responds to preexisting religious concepts/stories/issues and often reflects aspects of a Syriac Christian environment. The sleepers in the cave are undoubtedly those of the Christian tradition, why is it surprising that Dhool Q is reflective of another famous contemporary tradition?

 

[firedragon]

a) The Quran itself alludes to the story being well known 'and they ask you about Dhool...' (the preceding narrative is also arguably [but also arguably not] linked to Alexander)

b) The Neshana is Heraclian propaganda and was well known in the region and integrated into a broader Alexander literary tradition that both pre and post-dates the Quran.

c) Even if the Neshana didn't exist, Dhool would be identifiable as Alexander

d) The Quran was not well known at the time outside of Muhammed's community.

e) There is no broader DQ literary tradition

f) Why would a Syriac Christian rework and greatly expand an obscure Quranic pericope as a piece of imperial propaganda?

g) The Quran frequently responds to preexisting religious concepts/stories/issues and often reflects aspects of a Syriac Christian environment. The sleepers in the cave are undoubtedly those of the Christian tradition, why is it surprising that Dhool Q is reflective of another famous contemporary tradition?

1. You are referring to a document called Neshana written at least 900 years after Alexander died.

2. My question was why you assert the Neshana was written earlier than the Quran.

3. Since you are referring to a document almost a millennium late, you can also refer to documents a century or two late.

4. According to study of sanad, the chapter you refer to for zul-qarnayn was revealed around 625-627. The Neshana was written in the seventh century, after the conquest of Palestine and Iraq. We only know it was written after, not immediately after. Thus if you give a fair share of your thoughts, whats the reasoning to say "It can never be proved which one was written first, but given the context, it is far more likely that the Neshana was first".

5. No point discussing why would one copy and other stories in the Quran.

Zul Qarnaini again means leader or owner of two generations. It is a plural word. It could refer to a person. But this assessment is highly questionable..

Cheers.

 

[Augustus]

1. You are referring to a document called Neshana written at least 900 years after Alexander died.
.

It isn't about the real Alexander though, but the literary Alexander

2. My question was why you assert the Neshana was written earlier than the Quran.

Hence the answer I gave

4. According to study of sanad, the chapter you refer to for zul-qarnayn was revealed around 625-627. The Neshana was written in the seventh century, after the conquest of Palestine and Iraq. We only know it was written after, not immediately after. Thus if you give a fair share of your thoughts, whats the reasoning to say "It can never be proved which one was written first, but given the context, it is far more likely that the Neshana was first".

Why should I trust the sanad when the same scholars got so much else wrong? You don't trust the scholars either.

What makes you think it is more likely the Quran passage was first?

5. No point discussing why would one copy and other stories in the Quran.

It is when trying to identify if one appears far more likely than the other, which is what the academic study of history entails.

Zul Qarnaini again means leader or owner of two generations. It is a plural word. It could refer to a person. But this assessment is highly questionable..

Other respectable people seem to believe it can also mean something else, so both options appear to be on the table.