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

[Ignorant Philosopher]

Ummm. no it doesnt

Quraan is the Word of God.

If you want establish that there is a contradiction, you have to prove it based on that assumption even if you don't believe in it.

Chapter 111 condemns abu Lahab and says he will be burned in fire. It will only be a contradiction if abu lahab embraced Islam. And he had 10 years to do so and prove that Quraan is wrong. But he didn't.


DO you think that if Muhammad peace be upon him was writing the Quraan, would he take such a risk by condemning Abu lahab and implying that he will never come a muslim?

This chapter actually shows that Quraan is written by God for only God would now if Abu lahab would accept Islam or not.

Logical Fallacy.

Working backwards from your conclusions.

Please try again.

 

[Ignorant Philosopher]

5 years of left Islam for no reason.

Incorrect, he left for a reason.

Whether it is a good one or not is up for debate.

 

[firedragon]

5 years of left Islam for no reason.

Holy ****.

I though it was five years as a Muslim. If its all his life, then this is a blatant lie.

 

[firedragon]

Incorrect, he left for a reason.

Whether it is a good one or not is up for debate.

Whats the reason Philosopher?

 

[Debater Slayer]

111:0 In the name of God, the Almighty, the Merciful.
111:1 Condemned are the hands of the fire maker; condemned.
111:2 His money will not avail him, nor what he has earned.
111:3 He will be sent to a flaming fire.
111:4 And his wife who carries the logs.
111:5 On her neck will be a rope of thorns.

Not about an uncle.

ITs about a fire maker, a person who creates fire and the one who fuels his fire are condemned. Those who spread hate and the helpers.

After being a Muslim for 5 years, if this is your reasoning, its beyond my basic logic.

The prophets uncle depicted in the ahadith is called Abdul Mutalib. Not Abu Lahab.

The Quran was written way before the ahadith, thus thinking of understanding the Quran from the view of ahadith is the problem. If you look at the Quran itself, the meaning is Abu = Father, Lahab = is flame. Father of Flame is a term used in classical arabic for a person who provokes. He fathers the flame. Some Quran translations have left this un translated and makes an assertion its somehow the prophets uncle. Thats an assertion, Actually its an interpolation.

Wa Umrahathuhu, and the wife. It doesnt stop there. His wife carrying the logs. The helper in the kindling.

IF I am a Muslim and have a problem with this, I will explore further.

Also, I cant see how this contradicts the chapter 11:1. All I can see in this is that either its just an absurd jump into conclusions, or a big fat lie.

So much misinformation and misunderstanding of Arabic.

The chapter specifically refers to Muhammad's uncle and his wife. He was given the epithet Abu Lahab (literally "Father of the Flame") because he had a reddish-white complexion and his face became visibly reddish when he got angry, according to written descriptions of him. He was also viewed as handsome by many Arabs, another reason he was given that epithet.

According to what I've read, the Qur'an doesn't refer to him by name because Abu Lahab was known by his epithet among Arabs more than his actual name, and another thing I've read (but that I'm not sure if completely accurate or not) is that referring to someone by their epithet honors them less than referring to them by their name, which is why Abu Lahab's real name isn't mentioned in the Qur'an.

Abu Lahab was absolutely and undoubtedly Muhammad's uncle, not some metaphorical "Father of the Flame." Every single mufasir (interpreter of the Qur'an) I've read commentary from has said in their work that the verse refers to Muhammad's uncle and his wife.

 

[Godobeyer]

Incorrect, he left for a reason.

Whether it is a good one or not is up for debate.

For me it's not reason (good reason) , and I hope he will back.

 

[Ignorant Philosopher]

For me it's not reason (good reason) , and I hope he will back.

Do you use an alternative to the word reason besides the one accepted in standard English?

 

[Ignorant Philosopher]

Whats the reason Philosopher?

He believes the Qur'an to have a contradiction.

Whether or not his belief is true is up for debate, but regardless of whether or not it is his reason still stands.

 

[Ignorant Philosopher]

For me it's not reason (good reason) , and I hope he will back.

Can I ask why you hope that?

 

[Godobeyer]

Can I ask why you hope that?

Why not ?
Saving someone from hell,maybe ?

 

[Ignorant Philosopher]

Why not ?
Saving someone from hell,maybe ?

So I suppose you think that a human's choice to believe in a particular religion will persuade an all powerful deity to not inflict upon them eternal suffering.

 

[firedragon]

The chapter specifically refers to Muhammad's uncle and his wife.

Assertion.

He was given the epithet Abu Lahab (literally "father of the flame") because he had a reddish-white complexion and his face became visibly reddish when he got angry, according to written descriptions of him. He was also viewed as handsome by many Arabs, another reason he was given that epithet.

Assertion.

According to what I've read, the Qur'an doesn't refer to him by name because Abu Lahab was known by his epithet among Arabs more than his actual name, and another thing I've read (but that I'm not sure if completely accurate or not) is that referring to someone by their epithet honors them less than referring to them by their name, which is why Abu Lahab's real name isn't mentioned in the Qur'an.

Assertion.

Abu Lahab was absolutely and undoubtedly Muhammad's uncle, not some metaphorical "Father of the Flame." Every single mufasir (interpreter of the Qur'an) I've read commentary from has said in their work that the verse refers to Muhammad's uncle and his wife.

Mufasir is not an interpreter of the Quran. A mufassiroon will give you times and places an ayat or set was delivered and the exegisis. He is not an interpreter of the Quran.

Ask him, for 28 chapters that bukhari reports as no narration.

Tell me why YOU believe that this verse is talking about Muhammeds Uncle. Not based on some documents centuries later.

Peace. And tell me also, why

So much misinformation and misunderstanding of Arabic.

Lets see Debater Slayer..

Do you tell me that Abu Lahab does not mean father of flame????

 

[Debater Slayer]

Assertion.



Assertion.



Assertion.

More like statements based on historical, linguistic, and exegetical facts as agreed on by the majority of experts in those respective fields with respect to the Qur'an. What is your source for your statement that the verse is merely a metaphor and not a reference to Muhammad's uncle?

Mufasir is not an interpreter of the Quran. A mufassiroon will give you times and places an ayat or set was delivered and the exegisis. He is not an interpreter of the Quran.

Have you read anything by Ibn Katheer, for instance? Or Al-Qurtubi? It's not just about giving context; it's also about conveying the meaning of the verses according to the scholar(s).

Ask him, for 28 chapters that bukhari reports as no narration.

Not sure what this is even supposed to mean.

Tell me why YOU believe that this verse is talking about Muhammeds Uncle. Not based on some documents centuries later.

Because there are written descriptions of Abu Lahab that state the origin of his epithet. It's like asking how people know that Muhammad's epithet is Abu Al-Qasim. It's in written accounts about him and his life.

Peace. And tell me also, why



Lets see Debater Slayer..

Do you tell me that Abu Lahab does not mean father of flame????

It does, but like I said, that's an epithet; it doesn't mean the verse is metaphorical. It refers to someone by the epithet he was widely known by among his people.

 

[firedragon]

More like statements based on historical, linguistic, and exegetical facts as agreed on by the majority of experts in those respective fields with respect to the Qur'an. What is your source for your statement that the verse is merely a metaphor and not a reference to Muhammad's uncle?

No source written centuries later.

Have you read anything by Ibn Katheer, for instance? Or Al-Qurtubi? It's not just about giving context; it's also about conveying the meaning of the verses according to the scholar(s).

Haha. Oh your idols? Yes Ive read them. Have you?

Not sure what this is even supposed to mean.

Which means you have not read the source.

Because there are written descriptions of Abu Lahab that state the origin of his epithet. It's like asking how people know that Muhammad's epithet is Abu Al-Qasim. It's in written accounts about him and his life.

Nothing to do with Arabic as you said my friend.

It does, but like I said, that's an epithet; it doesn't mean the verse is metaphorical. It refers to someone by the epithet he was widely known by among his people.

Why do you say this as if its revelation?

This is not what the Quran says. It is what others say.

So please tell me how this is a contradiction as depicted in the OP.

 

[Kelvin Davidson]

Oh. apologies for making a mistake, he is abu muttalib.

What does that change?

Let me give his full name. Abd al-Uzza bin Ab al-Muttalib.

Thats all? 5 Years as a Muslim and thats a reason to denounce your faith.

you used a hadith to support a lie you've accidentally said to me. abu lahab was the nickname of abdul uzza, which is an uncle of the prophet. because of that, do you think God would use such a confusing reference after stating that the verses are perfect and explained in detail? you're just helping me become further aware that chapter 111 should not exist.

 

[Debater Slayer]

No source written centuries later.

Then what? Your own interpretation centuries later?

And the descriptions are centuries old; it's just that they have survived to this day. They weren't written yesterday or something.

Haha. Oh your idols? Yes Ive read them. Have you?

How are they "my idols"?

Which means you have not read the source.

I don't know what point you were trying to make. The sentence was ambiguous at best to me.

Nothing to do with Arabic as you said my friend.

It does, since understanding the linguistic context of the Qur'an relies heavily on understanding Arabic. You can read translated exegetical works, but the fact remains that Qur'anic exegesis scholars are required to know Arabic by necessity.

Why do you say this as if its revelation?

This is not what the Quran says. It is what others say.

So please tell me how this is a contradiction as depicted in the OP.

Does the Qur'an say that it is referring to Yunus (Jonah) in this verse?

And [mention] the man of the fish, when he went off in anger and thought that We would not decree [anything] upon him. And he called out within the darknesses, "There is no deity except You; exalted are You. Indeed, I have been of the wrongdoers."

(Source of translation.)

He is called the "man of the fish" instead of being referred to with his real name. Does that mean we should just dismiss any exegetical commentary that points out that this is one of the names of the Islamic Prophet Yunus?

 

[firedragon]

you used a hadith to support a lie you've accidentally said to me. abu lahab was the nickname of abdul uzza, which is an uncle of the prophet.

Never did.

because of that, do you think God would use such a confusing reference after stating that the verses are perfect and explained in detail? you're just helping me become further aware that chapter 111 should not exist.

Because of that? 111 does not exist? Pfffffft.

 

[Kelvin Davidson]

Never did.



Because of that? 111 does not exist? Pfffffft.

please try to prove that what i'm telling you is wrong.

 

[firedragon]

Then what? Your own interpretation centuries later?

Nope. The book at the time.

And the descriptions are centuries old; it's just that they have survived to this day. They weren't yesterday or something.

I know they are centuries old. We grow up studying them. And yesterday I made some food to a new recipe to please myself. Also I know these documents were not made yesterday.

I don't know what point you were trying to make. The sentence was ambiguous at best to me.

Still, thats because you have not read the source.

It does, since understanding the linguistic context of the Qur'an relies heavily on understanding Arabic. You can read translated exegetical works, but the fact remains that Qur'anic exegesis scholars are required to know Arabic by necessity.

Hmmm. Linguistic context. Lol. What is that?

Does the Qur'an say that it is referring to Yunus (Jonah) in this verse?

No. Where in the world did that come from? (I would have said where the hell did that come from but Im afraid you might use that in coordination with something)

 

[firedragon]

please try to prove that what i'm telling you is wrong.

First lets understand what you are saying.