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

[firedragon]

In what way do astronauts gain permission to pass?

See I am not in that kind of business. I dont about astronauts and I dont know about the authority who gives them their license. Sorry mate. No clue.

 

[Ignorant Philosopher]

See I am not in that kind of business. I dont about astronauts and I dont know about the authority who gives them their license. Sorry mate. No clue.

Are you mocking me?

Did not understand my point?

Admitting ignorance?

Or something else?

 

[McBell]

The Deity. The correct rendition of Allah.

Semantics Pigeon Chess is fun and all, but does not help you.

 

[Ignorant Philosopher]

The Deity. The correct rendition of Allah.

There is nothing close to a universal agreement on whether or not that is the case.

 

[Augustus]

Logical Fallacy

Strawman Argument.

I never said that all humans are rational.

Then you should have no problem with the idea that we all believe things with no evidence and disbelieve things that are demonstrated by evidence.

(Your highlighting a strawman was a strawman btw as you completely ignored the actual main point of the post that clearly responded to your previous, and also incorrect, claim of a logical fallacy. RF rule of thumb: people who most love crying 'fallacy' never do so accurately and have almost always missed the point)

 

[firedragon]

Are you mocking me?

Did not understand my point?

Admitting ignorance?

Or something else?

Nope. I just dont see it because you dont explain your point. You just posted Arabic text. I recognise from the Quran. BUt I dont know from where. But I did ask you two questions since for you to post Arabic text, you must be knowing Arabic.

Anyway, why dont you ask your question unambiguously.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Do you?

I'm basing my opinion on the majority scholarly consensus as well as what I believe to be the most convincing historical evidence concerning the meaning of the verse.

Lol. You said somethings that are comical.

Nevertheless, do you not have a brain? Do you actually take centuries late documents to understand an early document? Forget the rest, do you???

As I have already said, written descriptions of Abu Lahab are not "centuries late." They are pretty old themselves.

I mean the source. The books of Ahadith.

What about them?

Translate it. Do you also say that Abu ghabi is a name???

It's not a name; it's an epithet. But I have already pointed that out more than once, so I'm not sure why I have to do so again.

Yunus is referred by name.

Wainna Yoonusa Laminal Mursaleena.

Yes, and he's referred to as a "man of the fish" in addition to his real name. That's why I used that example: the Qur'an doesn't always refer to people strictly using their real names.

Because you follow them, not your brain.

It's more like I defer to both my brain and scholarly expertise when I'm trying to research or understand any discipline, not just religion. You wouldn't ignore the majority scholarly view among historians when you were trying to research and understand the history of the Roman Empire, for example, would you?

 

[Ignorant Philosopher]

Then you should have no problem with the idea that we all believe things with no evidence and disbelieve things that are demonstrated by evidence.

(Your highlighting a strawman was a strawman btw as you completely ignored the actual main point of the post that clearly responded to your previous, and also incorrect, claim of a logical fallacy. RF rule of thumb: people who most love crying 'fallacy' never do so accurately and have almost always missed the point)

One last chance to make a post without logical fallacies.

Logical Fallacy

Strawman Argument

Me saying that I do not believe that all humans are rational does not mean that I think all humans are irrational.

Logical Fallacy

Faulty Generalization

Saying that all people who love crying "fallacy" never do so accurately.

 

[firedragon]

Semantics Pigeon Chess is fun and all, but does not help you.

Sure. Mind my ignorance, I dont know what Pigeon Chess is.

 

[Ignorant Philosopher]

Nope. I just dont see it because you dont explain your point. You just posted Arabic text. I recognise from the Quran. BUt I dont know from where. But I did ask you two questions since for you to post Arabic text, you must be knowing Arabic.

Anyway, why dont you ask your question unambiguously.

The Qu'ran states that Allah must give permission for humans and jinn to leave the atmosphere.

 

[firedragon]

There is nothing close to a universal agreement on whether or not that is the case.

Apologies Philosopher. I may have missed your original issue. I am clueless on what you are talking about.

You can show me again if you dont mind'

 

[Ignorant Philosopher]

Apologies Philosopher. I may have missed your original issue. I am clueless on what you are talking about.

You can show me again if you dont mind'

The term deity in reference to Allah being capitalized in proper English is a point of contention and is not the only proper way as you seemed to suggest.

 

[Debater Slayer]

As a non-Muslim Arab, how much do you trust Islamic theology to be an accurate representation of historical fact? Do you think the Sirah is broadly accurate, or largely invented for theological reasons (or 'other')?

The Qur'an has some factual historical references, but it also has mythological (in my opinion) parts being presented as historical facts, such as the "table from Heaven" that people asked Jesus for, or Moses's splitting the sea, etc. To take it as an altogether mythological or altogether historical book is unreasonable, in my opinion, because it's a mix of both, although I do think that the mythological parts outnumber the historical ones.

As for the sirah, I also think that it is a mix of historical facts and glorified depictions of Muhammad and his actions. I believe the parts about the locations and dates of Muhammad's conquests, for example, but I don't believe it on stuff like "Muhammad's face looked like a piece of the Moon" (I actually read that in one description of him).

If you look at tafsir from the likes of Tabari, it is clear that mufassir have absolutely no idea how to interpret many passages of the Quran and are merely guessing. Even to things that should be important like who the Sabians were they have no idea. Other passages they are plain wrong such as associating al-fil with Abraha, or not understanding why Abraham's wife laughed.

I wouldn't say that muffasirs overall "have no idea"; it's just that some parts are more open to interpretation than others. There is a reason one has to study the sirah alongside tafsir, because it provides the context and groundwork for interpreting many parts of the Qur'an. Islam is one of the most organized religions in the world at the moment, and a big factor in that is that there is a majority scholarly consensus on most issues, or at least majority scholarly consensus that usually falls within the realm of the four major schools of Islam. Sure, there are different sects of Islam that have different interpretations of Islamic texts, but the significant majority of Muslims are Sunni.

On the other hand, minutiae of the Prophets life are recorded with stunning accuracy such as women lobbing sticks into people's paths.

Yes, that's why I believe that the sirah is a mix of history and fictional exaggerations.

To me, Abu Lahab seems far more likely to be a metaphor as part of a parable than an actual person, and the story seems likely to be made up like many other things clearly are.

How do you reconcile this belief with the fact that there are written accounts of an actual person who had the epithet "Abu Lahab" who was also Muhammad's uncle?

This is an intertextual reference though which makes it clear. The Quran is full of them, although the mufassir didn't always realise as their knowledge of pre-Islamic theology diminished over time.

The Qur'an borrows quite a bit from previous Abrahamic religions in general: identical names of many prophets, similar accounts of some of their life events, etc.

 

[firedragon]

I'm basing my opinion on the majority scholarly consensus as well as what I believe to be the most convincing historical evidence concerning the meaning of the verse.

I give you the majority consensus argument . Though it is not the majority, just the few accepted as the majority who side with the so called orthodox. But if you believe it to be the most convincing HISTORICAL EVIDENCE, then you are lying or just following the so called orthodox majority. Please explain why.

As I have already said, written descriptions of Abu Lahab are not "centuries late." They are pretty old themselves.

Not really. Show me the oldest, and show me its not centuries later.

What about them?

Youve lost it.

It's not a name; it's an epithet. But I have already pointed that out more than once, so I'm not sure why I have to do so again.

I have also said that you must translate it, a few times. I am not sure why I have to do it again.

Yes, and he's referred to as a "man of the fish" in addition to his real name. That's why I used that example: the Qur'an doesn't always refer to people strictly using their real names.

WHere does it say "Man of Fish". Wazaa Unnooni?? Does that say Man of Fish?? Show me, I would like to know. I can see you have used an example, but there is no example.

 

[firedragon]

It's more like I defer to both my brain and scholarly expertise when I'm trying to research or understand any discipline, not just religion. You wouldn't ignore the majority scholarly view among historians when you were trying to research and understand the history of the Roman Empire, for example, would you?

Oh yes. Follow the majority (you think). Alles Gut. Martin Luther will jump into a well.

 

[Ignorant Philosopher]

give you the majority consensus argument . Though it is not the majority, just the few accepted as the majority who side with the so called orthodox. But if you believe it to be the most convincing HISTORICAL EVIDENCE, then you are lying or just following the so called orthodox majority. Please explain why.

Please explain why you believe that the Qur'an is completely historically accurate.

 

[Ignorant Philosopher]

Oh yes. Follow the majority (you think). Alles Gut. Martin Luther will jump into a well.

Logical Fallacy

Appeal to Emotion

 

[firedragon]

Logical Fallacy

Appeal to Emotion

Yes your highness.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I give you the majority consensus argument . Though it is not the majority, just the few accepted as the majority who side with the so called orthodox. But if you believe it to be the most convincing HISTORICAL EVIDENCE, then you are lying or just following the so called orthodox majority. Please explain why.

1) I'm an ex-Muslim who read a lot about Islam with consideration for different perspectives during my period of doubt because I was afraid I would go to Hell if I lost my belief, and that's on top of having lived my whole life in Muslim-majority countries. So no, I'm not lying. You can ask questions instead of assuming dishonesty on the part of those who disagree with you.

Not really. Show me the oldest, and show me its not centuries later.

Like I said, you can refer to any of the older tafseers like Ibn Katheer's to know more details about this stuff. It's not hard because the tafseers are available online.

Youve lost it.

Is this an answer?

I have also said that you must translate it, a few times. I am not sure why I have to do it again.

"Abu Lahab" = "Man of the Flame," literally. I already posted this and explained the reason this epithet was given to Abu Lahab much earlier on in this thread.

WHere does it say "Man of Fish". Wazaa Unnooni?? Does that say Man of Fish?? Show me, I would like to know. I can see you have used an example, but there is no example.

"Noon" is one of the words in Arabic that mean "whale," and in Arabic, "za" indicates possessiveness. So "zal noon" is "man of the fish."

Are you fluent in Arabic? This is not a rhetorical question; I'm really wondering.

 

[firedragon]

Please explain why you believe that the Qur'an is completely historically accurate.

Why should I? Irrelevant mate.