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

[Desert Snake]

Yes your highness.

logical fallacy.

actually, 'man of fish', could be Jesus? hmm

 

[Kelvin Davidson]

now that this conversation has veered off, the results might be more clear since we first debated about it. remember the first post of the thread: chapter 111 is useless and makes chapter 11 verse 1 a lie.

 

[Augustus]

Logical Fallacy

Faulty Generalization

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

Jesus wept. You really are going for the rapid fire fallacy **** up record here.

Is there a generic fallacy name for not knowing the meaning of "rule of thumb".

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.

You'd do well to stop thinking in pre-packaged cliches as it seriously messes with your ability to have a meaningful discussion.

I'll simplify:

1. Whether you acknowledge it or not. You (and everybody else) believe things you have no evidence for. You also disbelieve things despite there being significant evidence against them (i.e. your belief you can competently use generic fallacies in an accurate and insightful manner).
2. Every human is irrational to a significant degree. Some are more rational than others, but we really are not a rational animal [at least not in the Aristotelian sense]. There is a very strong scientific case for this (See Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, Robert Trivers, Robert Kurzban, Daniel Gilbert etc.).

Ironically, only an irrational person can consider themselves rational while a rational person knows they are irrational.

Anyway, take it or leave it. I'm bored of fallacy bingo. But if you won't take my word for it, go and read about heuristics and biases, evolutionary psychology, the 'modular mind', etc.

 

[firedragon]

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.

I didnt assume dishonesty. I assumed ignorance.

You say that some documents written centuries after the prophet are historical evidence while you discredit the Quran which is the closest to his time by using the same historical evidence you claim through the same documents written centuries later. Dont you see you have made a mistake?

And I dont care about what majority any country has mate.

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.

Yep. Tafseers are available online. But do you believe in Ibn Kathirs thafseer. Do you see it as infallible? Historically accurate. Just say it.

Is this an answer?

I meant youve lost the original question you had.

"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.

Good. Im glad. If you give me the reference I will read it with all due respect.

I have read all the bloody documents that pertains to this subject, all are so dubious, based on irrelevant, late and ambiguous narrations that I don't have any relationship to them.

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.



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.



Is this an answer?



"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.



"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.

Lol You believe that? Noon is a Whale? Bro we already read this.

You are right. Za does mean possess in conjunction with with other words. But, Noon is not whale....

If its whale, why does it not say "Man of Whale" instead of "Man of Fish"?

Do you know where the whale story comes from?

It comes from from a stupid and ******* story from Ibn Kathirs interpretation or in the famous phrase "Tafsir" where it states that a big whale carried the seven earths on its body.

I am not even gonna begin with that story.

Are you seriously understanding the Quranic verses from this point of view? Its a bit absurd mate. (I typed bro but deleted it btw)

Peace.

 

[Ignorant Philosopher]

Jesus wept. You really are going for the rapid fire fallacy **** up record here.

Appeal to Ridicule

You'd do well to stop thinking in pre-packaged cliches as it seriously messes with your ability to have a meaningful discussion.

Bulverism Fallacy

I'll simplify:

1. Whether you acknowledge it or not. You (and everybody else) believe things you have no evidence for. You also disbelieve things despite there being significant evidence against them (i.e. your belief you can competently use generic fallacies in an accurate and insightful manner).
2. Every human is irrational to a significant degree. Some are more rational than others, but we really are not a rational animal [at least not in the Aristotelian sense]. There is a very strong scientific case for this (See Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, Robert Trivers, Robert Kurzban, Daniel Gilbert etc.).

Appeal to Authority

Ironically, only an irrational person can consider themselves rational while a rational person knows they are irrational.

Reduction to absurdity.

Anyway, take it or leave it. I'm bored of fallacy bingo. But if you won't take my word for it, go and read about heuristics and biases, evolutionary psychology, the 'modular mind', etc.

Goodbye.

I hope you learn how to use logic.

 

[firedragon]

logical fallacy.

actually, 'man of fish', could be Jesus? hmm

Well, if it said fish, it could be Simon. Or another fisherman in Galili.

 

[Desert Snake]

Well, if it said fish, it could be Simon. Or another fisherman in Galili.

Jesus is a 'fisher of men'. However, that is true.

 

[Augustus]

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.

Not no idea in general, but no idea on certain passages of the Quran. Tabari will sometimes cite 10+ incompatible explanations of the same passage.

IMO, the problem about studying the Sirah to understand the Quran is that large parts of the Sirah were constructed by 9th C Iraqi jurists to make theological points about their own society.

Much scholarly consensus appeared later, for example on the year of the Prophet's birth.

He is generally considered to be born in the 'year of the elephant' (the elephant story itself lacks historicity), however according to various sources he was born 15 years before that, or 3 or 10 or 15 or 20 or 23 or 30 or 40 or 50 or 70 years later. If something as straightforward as this produces such a range of opinions, it seems very strange that much of the rest of his life is described in minute detail.

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?

Not from before the 8th C there are not.

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

More the latter imo. The sirah gets far more detailed the later it was written, and frequently doesn't chime with the limited historical record we have.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I didnt assume dishonesty. I assumed ignorance.

You say that some documents written centuries after the prophet are historical evidence while you discredit the Quran which is the closest to his time by using the same historical evidence you claim through the same documents written centuries later. Dont you see you have made a mistake?

And I dont care about what majority any country has mate.

I'm not discrediting the Qur'an; I'm saying it can't be interpreted accurately in isolation of its linguistic and historical context.

Yep. Tafseers are available online. But do you believe in Ibn Kathirs thafseer. Do you see it as infallible? Historically accurate. Just say it.

There's no such thing as "believing in" a tafseer, unless you idolize it, which I don't do. And no, it's not infallible, but it's based on scholarly knowledge and extensive study.

I meant youve lost the original question you had.

The original question I had was asking about what you meant to begin with. I still don't know what your purpose was for mentioning Al-Bukhari.

Good. Im glad. If you give me the reference I will read it with all due respect.

I have read all the bloody documents that pertains to this subject, all are so dubious, based on irrelevant, late and ambiguous narrations that I don't have any relationship to them.

Sure, since you asked and you didn't answer my question about whether you are fluent in Arabic, here is a link on the subject:

http://fatwa.islamweb.net/fatwa/index.php?page=showfatwa&Option=FatwaId&Id=106774

Hopefully it'll be helpful to you... if you can read it, that is.

Lol You believe that? Noon is a Whale? Bro we already read this.

You are right. Za does mean possess in conjunction with with other words. But, Noon is not whale....

If its whale, why does it not say "Man of Whale" instead of "Man of Fish"?

Because Qur'anic translations aren't unanimous or always perfectly accurate. This is Yusuf Ali's translation (according to this website):

And remember Zun nun, When he departed in wrath: he imagined that we had no power over him! But he cried through the depths Of darkness, there is no god but Thou: glory to thee: I was indeed wrong!

(Boldening mine.)

He transliterated it instead of translating it.

Do you know where the whale story comes from?

It comes from from a stupid and dumb*** story from Ibn Kathirs interpretation or in the famous phrase "Tafsir" where it states that a big whale carried the seven earths on its body.

I am not even gonna begin with that story.

Are you seriously understanding the Quranic verses from this point of view? Its a bit absurd mate. (I typed bro but deleted it btw)

Peace.

Ibn Katheer didn't make up that story, actually (another source for you to read, since you didn't answer the question and keep making claims about metaphors in Arabic): https://islamqa.info/ar/114861

I think it would be unwise at best to get all of one's knowledge about the Qur'an's meaning according to scholars form just one tafseer, which is why I never said that you should look stuff up in Ibn Katheer only. There are plenty of other tafseers out there in addition to that one.

 

[Augustus]

I hope you learn how to use logic.

You might like this thread btw (don't worry it's not by me)

http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/the-fallacy-of-using-classical-fallacies.153326/#post-3476946

 

[Augustus]

@Debater Slayer @firedragon

How would you translate this الر كِتَابٌ أُحْكِمَتْ آيَاتُهُ ثُمَّ فُصِّلَتْ مِن لَّدُنْ حَكِيمٍ خَبِيرٍ ? (Quran 11:1)

This seems to have one of the widest range of translations I've seen for any verse.

 

[firedragon]

I'm not discrediting the Qur'an; I'm saying it can't byou ze interpreted accurately in isolation of its linguistic and historical context.

Are saying it or is that someones word through you? If its yours, whats the basis? External documents that have stories that you want to believe in? Are they coherent with eachother. You may even contrdict the Quran trying to render it through them.

There's no such thing as "believing in" a tafseer, unless you idolize it, which I don't do. And no, it's not infallible, but it's based on scholarly knowledge and extensive study.

Well, there could be other extensive study as well. The thing is, your scholarly knowledge is not based on the language or the Quran, its based on other documents.

The original question I had was asking about what you meant to begin with. I still don't know what your purpose was for mentioning Al-Bukhari.

I said Bukhari claims that 28 chapters of the Quran dont have Ahadith to back it up.

They tried their best to relate Ahadith to the Quranic verses and couldnt find any verse that even remotely correlate to 28 chapters. Thats it.

Sure, since you asked and you didn't answer my question about whether you are fluent in Arabic, here is a link on the subject:

http://fatwa.islamweb.net/fatwa/index.php?page=showfatwa&Option=FatwaId&Id=106774

Hopefully it'll be helpful to you... if you can read it, that is.

Thank you so much for this stupendous information. I shall read it during prime time.

I'm not discrediting the Qur'an; I'm saying it can't be interpreted accurately in isolation of its linguistic and historical context.



There's no such thing as "believing in" a tafseer, unless you idolize it, which I don't do. And no, it's not infallible, but it's based on scholarly knowledge and extensive study.



The original question I had was asking about what you meant to begin with. I still don't know what your purpose was for mentioning Al-Bukhari.



Sure, since you asked and you didn't answer my question about whether you are fluent in Arabic, here is a link on the subject:

http://fatwa.islamweb.net/fatwa/index.php?page=showfatwa&Option=FatwaId&Id=106774

Hopefully it'll be helpful to you... if you can read it, that is.



Because Qur'anic translations aren't unanimous or always perfectly accurate. This is Yusuf Ali's translation (according to this website):



(Boldening mine.)

He transliterated it instead of translating it.



Ibn Katheer didn't make up that story, actually (another source for you to read, since you didn't answer the question and keep making claims about metaphors in Arabic): https://islamqa.info/ar/114861

I think it would be unwise at best to get all of one's knowledge about the Qur'an's meaning according to scholars form just one tafseer, which is why I never said that you should look stuff up in Ibn Katheer only. There are plenty of other tafseers out there in addition to that one.

Well, if you believe in Ibn Kathirs story, then you have to believe that earth rests on a whale in the sea.

Well since you mentioned others maybe you should dig up Qurtubi and Tabari as well. They agree with the whale carrying the earth.

Contradicting much? Yep.

 

[firedragon]

@Debater Slayer @firedragon

How would you translate this الر كِتَابٌ أُحْكِمَتْ آيَاتُهُ ثُمَّ فُصِّلَتْ مِن لَّدُنْ حَكِيمٍ خَبِيرٍ ? (Quran 11:1)

This seems to have one of the widest range of translations I've seen for any verse.

A book assured of the signs, then detailed, from the one who is wise, eternally knowing.

 

[firedragon]

Jesus is a 'fisher of men'. However, that is true.

But he assured that he will make Matthew a fisher of men. Or rather, fish for men.

 

[DawudTalut]

chapters 110 and 111 seem completely unrelated. according to your beliefs, why would you even need to explain what you're saying to someone if the verses are "perfect" and "explained in detail"?

Peace be on you.
1=Verses and locations of chapters in Holy Quran are linked and support each other and give full picture. For example, holy attributes of Allah are spread all over Quran.

2=
[11:2] Alif Lam Ra. This is a Book whose verses have been made unchangeable and then they have been expounded in detail. It is from One Wise, and All-Aware.
http://www.alislam.org/quran/tafseer/?page=1047&region=E1&CR=EN,E2&CR=EN,E2

Above verse does not prohibit one to understand it in light of other verses.

the only verse in chapter 111 that mentions anyone other than abu lahab and his wife is in verse 2 where there is a translation which says "his children," but it's worded like this:
His wealth and his children (etc.) will not benefit him!
http://quran.com/111/2

[111:1] In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful.
[111:2] Perished be the two hands of Abu Lahab, and he will perish.
[111:3] His wealth and what he has earned shall avail him not.
[111:4] Soon shall he enter into a blazing fire;
[111:5] And his wife too, who goes about slandering.

Two hands
=Physical hands
=Power, assistance, help, army, wealth. [Lane]


Abu-Lahab
= Father of flame of fire -- Man with fiery temper.
= Holy Prophet (sa)'s uncle who opposed him from the very beginning.

Hammalatal Hatab
=The carrier of firewood.
=hataba bahi : he slandered him

Imra'atohu
=Wife; AbuLahab's wife Umme Jameel strewed thorns in his path and went about spreading calumnies against him.
=associate [Lane]; of those powers who help their masters against Islam.


This chapter 111 in its in-depth is shedding light on the end of Anti-Truth powers mentioned in the end of chapter 18, Surah Al-Kahf too.

Mention of events in Holy Quran has deep meanings.

Good wishes.

 

[FearGod]

يَا مَعْشَرَ الْجِنِّ وَالْإِنسِ إِنِ اسْتَطَعْتُمْ أن تَنفُذُوا مِنْ أقْطَارِ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأرْضِ فَانفُذُوا لَآ تَنفُذُونَ إِلاّ بِسُلْطَانٍ

فَبِأيِّ آلَآء رَبِّكُمَا تُكَذِّبَانِ

The answer is in verse (55:36)
يُرْسَلُ عَلَيْكُمَا شُوَاظٌ مِّن نَّارٍ وَنُحَاسٌ فَلَا تَنتَصِرَانِ

Read about the mystery of the green fireballs which found to consist of copper particles and recognized as unidentified flying objects..

 

[Smart_Guy]

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?

Actually, chapter 111 does not in anyway imply Muhammad wants revenge. It's what God decided for Abu Lahab because of his evils against Muslims and Islam, him and his wife.

As for Quran 11:1, it is not really saying that the Quran is easy to understand, it's only saying that the Quran has perfected verses that are very well detailed. I don't see it contradicts with anything, with that. I'm an educated Arab myself and that what it clearly says in Arabic.

Did you interpret those on you own or do you have a source for it?

By the way, you gotta forgive some posts. Religious people or religious discussions in general tend to give "that" kind of feeling and impression, if you know what I mean

 

[Sakeenah]

When reading certain verses or chapters it's important to understand when it was revealed and in what context it was revealed. I've copied and pasted the tafsir ( exegesis) for those who are interested.

Exegesis of surah lahab(111) by Ibn Kathir

Al-Bukhari recorded from Ibn `Abbas that the Prophet went out to the valley of Al-Batha and he ascended the mountain. Then he cried out,

«يَا صَبَاحَاه»

(O people, come at once!) So the Quraysh gathered around him. Then he said,

«أَرَأَيْتُمْ إِنْ حَدَّثْتُكُمْ أَنَّ الْعَدُوَّ مُصَبِّحُكُمْ، أَوْ مُمَسِّيكُمْ أَكُنْتُمْ تُصَدِّقُونِّي»

؟ (If I told you all that the enemy was going to attack you in the morning, or in the evening, would you all believe me) They replied, "Yes.'' Then he said,

«فَإِنِّي نَذِيرٌ لَكُمْ بَيْنَ يَدَيْ عَذَابٍ شَدِيد»

(Verily, I am a warner (sent) to you all before the coming of a severe torment.) Then Abu Lahab said, "Have you gathered us for this May you perish!'' Thus, Allah revealed,

﴿تَبَّتْ يَدَآ أَبِى لَهَبٍ وَتَبَّ ﴾

(Perish the two hands of Abu Lahab and perish he!) to the end of the Surah. In another narration it states that he stood up dusting of his hands and said, "Perish you for the rest of this day! Have you gathered us for this'' Then Allah revealed,

﴿تَبَّتْ يَدَآ أَبِى لَهَبٍ وَتَبَّ ﴾

(Perish the two hands of Abu Lahab and perish he!) The first part is a supplication against him and the second is information about him. This man Abu Lahab was one of the uncles of the Messenger of Allah.His name was `Abdul-`Uzza bin Abdul-Muttalib. His surname was Abu `Utaybah and he was only called Abu Lahab because of the brightness of his face. He used to often cause harm to the Messenger of Allah . He hated and scorned him and his religion. Imam Ahmad recorded from Abu Az-Zinad that a man called Rabi`ah bin `Abbad from the tribe of Bani Ad-Dil, who was a man of pre-Islamic ignorance who accepted Islam, said to him, "I saw the Prophet in the time of pre-Islamic ignorance in the market of Dhul-Majaz and he was saying,

«يَا أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ، قُولُوا: لَا إِلهَ إِلَّا اللهُ تُفْلِحُوا»

(O people! Say there is no god worthy of worship except Allah and you will be successful.) The people were gathered around him and behind him there was a man with a bright face, squint (or cross) eyes and two braids in his hair. He was saying, "Verily, he is an apostate (from our religion) and a liar!'' This man was following him (the Prophet ) around wherever he went. So, I asked who was he and they (the people) said, "This is his uncle, Abu Lahab.''

Concerning Allah's statement,

﴿مَآ أَغْنَى عَنْهُ مَالُهُ وَمَا كَسَبَ ﴾

(His wealth and his children (Kasab) will not benefit him!) Ibn `Abbas and others have said,

﴿وَمَا كَسَبَ﴾

(and his children (Kasab) will not benefit him!) "Kasab means his children.'' A similar statement has been reported from `A'ishah, Mujahid, `Ata', Al-Hasan and Ibn Sirin. It has been mentioned from Ibn Mas`ud that when the Messenger of Allah called his people to faith, Abu Lahab said, "Even if what my nephew says is true, I will ransom myself (i.e., save myself) from the painful torment on the Day of Judgement with my wealth and my children.'' Thus, Allah revealed,

﴿مَآ أَغْنَى عَنْهُ مَالُهُ وَمَا كَسَبَ ﴾

(His wealth and his children will not benefit him!) Then Allah says,

﴿سَيَصْلَى نَاراً ذَاتَ لَهَبٍ ﴾

(He will enter a Fire full of flames!) meaning, it has flames, evil and severe

﴿وَامْرَأَتُهُ حَمَّالَةَ الْحَطَبِ ﴾

(And his wife too, who carries wood.) His wife was among the leading women of the Quraysh and she was known as Umm Jamil. Her name was `Arwah bint Harb bin Umayyah and she was the sister of Abu Sufyan. She was supportive of her husband in his disbelief, rejection and obstinacy. Therefore, she will be helping to administer his punishment in the fire of Hell on the Day of Judgement. Thus, Allah says,

﴿وَامْرَأَتُهُ حَمَّالَةَ الْحَطَبِ - فِى جِيدِهَا حَبْلٌ مِّن مَّسَدٍ ﴾

(Who carries wood. In her neck is a twisted rope of Masad.) meaning, she will carry the firewood and throw it upon her husband to increase that which he is in (of torment), and she will be ready and prepared to do so.

﴿فِى جِيدِهَا حَبْلٌ مِّن مَّسَدٍ ﴾

(In her neck is a twisted rope of Masad.) Mujahid and `Urwah both said, "From the palm fiber of the Fire.'' Al-`Awfi narrated from Ibn `Abbas, `Atiyah Al-Jadali, Ad-Dahhak and Ibn Zayd that she used to place thorns in the path of the Messenger of Allah . Al-Jawhari said, "Al-Masad refers to fibers, it is also a rope made from fibers or palm leaves. It is also made from the skins of camels or their furs. It is said (in Arabic) Masadtul-Habla and Amsaduhu Masadan, when you tightly fasten its twine.'' Mujahid said,

﴿فِى جِيدِهَا حَبْلٌ مِّن مَّسَدٍ ﴾

(In her neck is a twisted rope of Masad.) "This means a collar of iron.'' Don't you see that the Arabs call a pulley cable a Masad

 

[Kelvin Davidson]

When reading certain verses or chapters it's important to understand when it was revealed and in what context it was revealed. I've copied and pasted the tafsir ( exegesis) for those who are interested.

why would we need to describe the verses of the qur`an with statements that aren't in the qur`an? it's not fair for future readers. what if recorded knowledge about historic events didn't last long enough to make it to everyone who reads the qur`an? that's not perfection. also, 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

 

[Debater Slayer]

Not no idea in general, but no idea on certain passages of the Quran. Tabari will sometimes cite 10+ incompatible explanations of the same passage.

IMO, the problem about studying the Sirah to understand the Quran is that large parts of the Sirah were constructed by 9th C Iraqi jurists to make theological points about their own society.

Much scholarly consensus appeared later, for example on the year of the Prophet's birth.

He is generally considered to be born in the 'year of the elephant' (the elephant story itself lacks historicity), however according to various sources he was born 15 years before that, or 3 or 10 or 15 or 20 or 23 or 30 or 40 or 50 or 70 years later. If something as straightforward as this produces such a range of opinions, it seems very strange that much of the rest of his life is described in minute detail.

What do you make of the fact that his life is described in so much detail, personally?

More the latter imo. The sirah gets far more detailed the later it was written, and frequently doesn't chime with the limited historical record we have.

Do you think the parts about A'isha's age in different sirahs have been intentionally tampered with?