• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

uncung

Member
So you go by blind faith, how do we know it's gods word and not mans. It should be traceable if it is God's word. I guess this conversation is over because there is nothing I could say.
I do believe in the comprehensive way Uthman compiled the Quran earlier. I don't ignore some manuscripts that likely also existed at that time. The reason Uthman compiled and selected the manuscripts was to protect the original Quran from alteration. There is no a problem in collecting the earlier manuscripts since sahabah/companions or the first generation memorized the Quran properly. so they simply matched their memorization with the manuscripts.
The earlier generation relied on their memorization beside the available fragments, since they didn't belong to the paper stuff.
 
Last edited:

anonymous9887

bible reader
I do believe in the comprehensive way Uthman compiled the Quran earlier. I don't ignore some manuscripts that likely also existed at that time. The reason Uthman compiled and selected the manuscripts was to protect the original Quran from alteration. There is no a problem in collecting the earlier manuscripts since sahabah/companions or the first generation memorized the Quran properly. so they simply matched their memorization with the manuscripts.
The earlier generation relied on their memorization beside the available fragments, since they didn't belong to the paper stuff.
yes but the problem is that the incomplete manuscripts we posses of the quran are dated long after uthman was killed. about 50 years after.
 

anonymous9887

bible reader
What evidence could be there apart from manuscript evidence? What you are asking is something else. Ask it directly without trying setups.
no set ups. we have the writing of Tacitus and he speaks of Jesus and mentions certain things like pilot for example. So can you provide something similar?
 

uncung

Member
If they memorized the Qur'an how come the available manuscripts don't reflect accuracy, since obviously they recited these words to copy it down.
If their memorization were not compatible with the available manuscripts, then the manuscripts are the false one.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
If they memorized the Qur'an how come the available manuscripts don't reflect accuracy, since obviously they recited these words to copy it down.

You have to understand the science of memorising the Quran mate.

Millions of people memorise the Quran now. Thats not to copy it down. This is the digital era.
 
Its ridiculous to say it is wrong without knowing. Ridiculous.

There is a big difference between saying it is wrong and saying it is probably wrong. You seem to be misrepresenting my arguments and missing the point. I'm not saying it is wrong.

It is perfectly rational to say it is probably wrong though because that is what the probabilities would suggest.

The dating might possibly be correct, if it is then later part of the date range is more probable than the 'before Muhammad' part. Why? Probabilities based on evidence. You use them sometimes too, see?

And I would like to know which idiot says the Sanaa script is from the 6th century.

Actually it was dated to between 433-599 and 543-643 and 578-669. The 'idiot' was RC dating, the very thing that you are praising for its wonderful accuracy.

Nobody takes the 5th/6th C dates as being accurate of course, some people take things like this into account before getting over-excited about the the RC dating of other manuscripts though.

Don't take RC dating as a god, it's very polytheistic ;)

Augustus. Your argument is based on an assumption. But it contains contamination. A maximum of 1%. And hemispheric effect has been highly considered in the dating.

I never mentioned contamination, it is about the problems of calibration. It is simply impossible to calibrate these machines to a very high degree of accuracy for dating ME manuscripts as there is not enough data to do so. This is why actual scholars in the field remain cautious, but open minded on the subject. Apologists on the other hand, act like apologists...
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
There is a big difference between saying it is wrong and saying it is probably wrong. You seem to be misrepresenting my arguments and missing the point. I'm not saying it is wrong.

It is perfectly rational to say it is probably wrong though because that is what the probabilities would suggest.

The dating might possibly be correct, if it is then later part of the date range is more probable than the 'before Muhammad' part. Why? Probabilities based on evidence. You use them sometimes too, see?

Earliest dates are bordering Zero %. You serious?

Actually it was dated to between 433-599 and 543-643 and 578-669. The 'idiot' was RC dating, the very thing that you are praising for its wonderful accuracy.

Nobody takes the 5th/6th C dates as being accurate of course, some people take things like this into account before getting over-excited about the the RC dating of other manuscripts though.

Don't take RC dating as a god, it's very polytheistic ;)

I asked for the idiot who dated it, not the methodology. And I know who did it, why the information is not given, whats the big deal about the hush hush. And I did not praise RC for its wonderful accuracy.

I have already given calculated reasoning including all considerations for the dating and how it could vary. It may very well be during Muhammeds time.

''.....take your ego as Ilah''''' - Quran
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
No but he confirms a character and events the bible mentions. Can you provide something similar in the Quran yes or no?

If you wish to keep asking various questions please do. Im sorry I am not gonna pick up sticks you throw.

From someone who cant even name an author with authority.
 

anonymous9887

bible reader
If you wish to keep asking various questions please do. Im sorry I am not gonna pick up sticks you throw.

From someone who cant even name an author with authority.
Ok. So I guess you can't provide an answer. If you knew the answer you would happily answer it and speedily, as I have talked to many, but when it comes to a more challenging question it gets avoided.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Ok. So I guess you can't provide an answer. If you knew the answer you would happily answer it and speedily, as I have talked to many, but when it comes to a more challenging question it gets avoided.

Do you realise that the Qurans of old itself mentions the prophet?

The Quran is not about the prophet at all either. You cant use the same yardstick you use against the bible. Its polls apart.

If you read the four canonical gospels you will see it is predominantly about Jesus himself and his ministry. The Quran is not. There is no point looking for external confirmation of the Quranic stories because its completely irrelevant to the time, place and people of the time.
 

anonymous9887

bible reader
Do you realise that the Qurans of old itself mentions the prophet?

The Quran is not about the prophet at all either. You cant use the same yardstick you use against the bible. Its polls apart.

If you read the four canonical gospels you will see it is predominantly about Jesus himself and his ministry. The Quran is not. There is no point looking for external confirmation of the Quranic stories because its completely irrelevant to the time, place and people of the time.
So no historical document can confirm anything about the Qur'an.

For example the bible talks about David and archeology later confirms him. Goliath also was confirmed as having existed. These men were fictional until later proved.

do you have any unique example in the Quran of this excluding muhammad, does history validate anything in the Quran?
 

anonymous9887

bible reader
Do you realise that the Qurans of old itself mentions the prophet?

The Quran is not about the prophet at all either. You cant use the same yardstick you use against the bible. Its polls apart.

If you read the four canonical gospels you will see it is predominantly about Jesus himself and his ministry. The Quran is not. There is no point looking for external confirmation of the Quranic stories because its completely irrelevant to the time, place and people of the time.
Hey btw, I'm being honest and sincere asking this question. If you can interpret Sura 3:6 for me in a very reasonable way I will give Islam a chance again, as in I will approach it with an open mind. I have seen the scholarly responses, but I don't like those responses.
 

anonymous9887

bible reader
If their memorization were not compatible with the available manuscripts, then the manuscripts are the false one.
Yes but what evidence could you provide that they memorized it with complete accuracy. From what I see there is none, it is a kind of blind faith.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
So no historical document can confirm anything about the Qur'an.

For example the bible talks about David and archeology later confirms him. Goliath also was confirmed as having existed. These men were fictional until later proved.

do you have any unique example in the Quran of this excluding muhammad, does history validate anything in the Quran?

Your argument would be that the Quran copied the bible, but David and Goliath is cited in the Quran as well.

The Quran is not like the bible and does not need external attestation.

History and theology is completely apart. But your question is valid as a historian, which I am not. I have also seen many people have large studies proving Jesus never existed. I have also seen bigger studies to show he existed. You are talking about David and Goliath as historical figures attested by archeologists, but can any historian find evidence for miracles? Any miracle! No. But you believe in them because its cited in the bible.

If you have read and studied the Quran you will see that it can never be deemed as a historic document because its mission is not to narrate stories. There are stories, but thats not all its about. If you read the bible its predominantly is narrating stories.

Your argument about the Quran was that the Quranic message is lost because it has textual variants. You have not substantiated your stupendous claim which I have never heard from anyone else. Rather than immediately diverting to other subjects which we can do later, why dont you prove what you said with evidence. You quoted a few variants between the current Quranic text and the Sanaa Manuscript. When you quoted it, you didnt even know what the manuscript was. And do you know what C1 is, you quoted it.

Even those variants do not make a single difference. The thing is when you come from a background of Quranic studies you will know why the variants exist and how they came about. What you as a gentleman must do is make some study, not simply repeat what others said like a parrot.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Yes but what evidence could you provide that they memorized it with complete accuracy. From what I see there is none, it is a kind of blind faith.

Go to any mosque where ever in the world you live. Especially during this season. You will find the evidence. Go at about 8:30 PM.
 
Top