My favourite scientific contradiction in the Quran

[ManSinha]

The Qur'an directly addresses this multiple times:

And if We had made it a Quran in a foreign tongue, they would certainly have said: 'Why have not its communications been made clear? What! a foreign (tongue) and an Arabian!'
Say: 'It is to those who believe a guidance and a healing; and (as for) those who do not believe, there is a heaviness in their ears and it is obscure to them; these shall be called to from a far-off place.'
- (Surah 41:44)

I understand there are some verses known as Mutashabihat - or mysterious or unclear - as I have asked before - why put those in a compendium made for the masses - people like me are confused anyway - without needing Allah to be mysterious - I have been in enough places to craft learning tools and we put it in the clearest and most simple terms - putting mysterious words is not something a rational teacher would do.

And yes your verse above conveys a smug arrogance about it - emphasis and underlining mine - almost similar to Surah 3:85 which to me reeks of intolerance no matter which way you spin it - "obey me and accept (blindly) what I say or else......" - like I said in an earlier post - if someone said that to me in real life - I would either tell them where to stick it or they would be picking themselves off the floor with a bloody nose

Try again - that explanation does not answer the question - it was written in Arabic for the time and place - that has passed and so it its relevance. Any claims or assertions you make to the contrary notwithstanding

Any "religion" that IMO purports to micromanage life like the Qu'ran and Bible do are doomed to obscurity as people's education and knowledge increase along with their calcium on their spine and their ability to question what is being told to them.

 

[ClimbingTheLadder]

Try again - that explanation does not answer the question - it was written in Arabic for the time and place - that has passed and so it its relevance. Any claims or assertions you make to the contrary notwithstanding

Yes and that verse debunks your fallacy.

If the Qur'an was written in english, then it would be "irrelevant" to non-english speaking people in the future, according to your 'logic'. It's an utterly ridiculous argument.

 

[ClimbingTheLadder]

Any "religion" that IMO purports to micromanage life like the Qu'ran and Bible do are doomed to obscurity as people's education and knowledge increase......

2 things:

1. They're two of the biggest religions in the world with no sign of slowing down, so they're hardly "doomed to obscurity"
2. The way you frame it is false, no religion is a static monolithic object.

3rd bonus: your argument 'from superiority' is also a fallacy. It's just a bias you have against previous civilizations. If anything, I think the modern world is more lost and immoral etc because of how much of a lack of perspective it has and because of how inconsistent it is with the past.

 

[ManSinha]

If the Qur'an was written in english, then it would be "irrelevant" to non-english speaking people in the future, according to your 'logic'. It's an utterly ridiculous argument.

It is not an "utterly ridiculous argument" that is you hiding behind epithets - it is proof that it came from humans and not any god - which is the whole point of this thread - a book from an all knowing divine being would be able to be understood by all humanity without intermediaries - I am still waiting to see one - and the Qu'ran is definitely not on the list

They're two of the biggest religions in the world with no sign of slowing down, so they're hardly "doomed to obscurity"

Christianity is declining fast in the western nations and the main parts of the world where Islam is growing is Africa and the third world - once education catches up - well we may see a different trend - I would not count my chickens for the survival of such an intolerant "religion" -

3rd bonus: your argument 'from superiority' is also a fallacy. It's just a bias you have against previous civilizations. If anything, I think the modern world is more lost and immoral etc because of how much of a lack of perspective it has and because of how inconsistent it is with the past.

The modern world is much better in every way than the ancient - your outdated concepts of "morality" are passe' . There you go again - wanting to "impose" your ideas of morality on others that give 2 hoots about your concepts. How does that make you different than the Bible thumping Christians that want to ban homosexuality? I am not saying it is perfect - the rich could be more compassionate and the US could perhaps have universal healthcare for instance but overall I would far prefer to live in the present than in the past and I am sure so would many many others.

The technological advances (which includes you reading my posts and typing out a reply) along with instantaneous communication in many instances and treatments for previously incurable illnesses are a boon. Are you serious that you think the old ages were better. If you do - then give up the computer and go live in a cave - your hypocrisy is shining like a beacon here. "Immoral and lost"? based on what? Your outdated ideas of how women should be covered up and be baby makers for their men perhaps? Try again -

 

[ClimbingTheLadder]

It is not an "utterly ridiculous argument" that is you hiding behind epithets - it is proof that it came from humans and not any god - which is the whole point of this thread - a book from an all knowing divine being would be able to be understood by all humanity without intermediaries - I am still waiting to see one - and the Qu'ran is definitely not on the list

There's not much I can do to help you when your problem is with a scripture being revealed in a language, it's a very poor and not well-thought-out argument.

I suppose though that you'll be the first to buy into some kind of multilingual AI scripture in the VR future

Christianity is declining fast in the western nations and the main parts of the world where Islam is growing is Africa and the third world - once education catches up - well we may see a different trend - I would not count my chickens for the survival of such an intolerant "religion" -

The point is not whether you like either religion, it's that you called them "doomed to obscurity" when the opposite is obviously true (which is what tends to make them controversial in a lot of places). No amount of atheist propaganda, European white supremacy and Indian nationalism will change this.

A lot of the things you dislike in those religions though I myself dislike but not with the same framing, I wouldn't go strawmaning and conflating things together to suit an agenda. I know very well what it feels like to be thrown in the same basket as a subgroup that I disagree with in every aspect of life. I am a person who understands diversity and complexity, unlike you apparently.

 

[ManSinha]

There's not much I can do to help you when your problem is with a scripture being revealed in a language, it's a very poor and not well-thought-out argument.

Read through the thread - the issue is not just the language - it is the internal inconsistencies and contradictions as well as different interpretations that cause people to question the claim of "came from god" - upon a cold logical analysis devoid of emotion - it does not stand up to facts - it most certainly is the work of men in Arabia in around 700-800 AD - nothing else -

The point is not whether you like either religion, it's that you called them "doomed to obscurity" when the opposite is obviously true (which is what tends to make them controversial in a lot of places). No amount of atheist propaganda, European white supremacy and Indian nationalism will change this.

Keep hoping - have you seen the site exmuslims.org? have you heard Irshad Manji - a self professed Muslim - acknowledge that the Qu'ran has intolerant verses in it. She uses the term Islamosupremasim - which is not relevant in this day and age. Muslims will never ever be able to impose their laws on those outside the Muslim theocracies.

Let us reconnect in 20 years inshallah and we shall see where you are and where your professed faith is

 

[ClimbingTheLadder]

The modern world is much better in every way than the ancient - your outdated concepts of "morality" are passe' .

You don't know what my beliefs on morality even are, lol, tryna pick fights.

There you go again - wanting to "impose" your ideas of morality on others that give 2 hoots about your concepts.

Says the one just playing the "my morals are better" fallacy game.

How does that make you different than the Bible thumping Christians that want to ban homosexuality?

Gay (men who worship Jesus) people banning other gay people is absurd.

The technological advances (which includes you reading my posts and typing out a reply) along with instantaneous communication in many instances and treatments for previously incurable illnesses are a boon.

I don't think technology is our savior but you're free to your opinions. Technology is limited in it's benefits.
Moderation with things is always good. You are just leading us into a political discussion though which I advise against, this thread is not about that.

Are you serious that you think the old ages were better.

I think it's quite relative actually. You're just moralizing from a position of modern supremacy which I think is an utter joke.

then give up the computer and go live in a cave

My ambition actually. I wanna be an ascetic with no ties to the modern world and spend all my life meditating but especially in the Covid epidemic it's not feasible

Your outdated ideas of how women should be covered up and be baby makers for their men perhaps?

Those are your ideas, not mine. You're very aggressive man, lighten up and show some love dude. Try again.

(for the record, I'm pro-nudist, for everyone and I think marriage and sex are overrated)

 

[ManSinha]

Says the one just playing the "my morals are better" fallacy game.

You are making that one up - either provide a direct quote where I said it or accept that you are inferring things that are not there

You don't know what my beliefs on morality even are, lol, tryna pick fights.

I am inferring based on your statement that the current world is "immoral and lost" - you said that - implying to a rational person that "morality" as practiced in other times was "better" - either provide an explanation or stop dancing -

You're very aggressive man, lighten up and show some love dude. Try again.

You used the words "utterly ridiculous argument" - if you do not want your debaters to get "aggressive" watch what you say and how you say it - you get carried away with emotion and you will fall on your face - every single time

 

[ClimbingTheLadder]

Read through the thread - the issue is not just the language - it is the internal inconsistencies and contradictions as well as different interpretations that cause people to question the claim of "came from god" - upon a cold logical analysis devoid of emotion - it does not stand up to facts - it most certainly is the work of men in Arabia in around 700-800 AD - nothing else -

Saying "I am not a Muslim" ten times in a row is not really contributing any valuable discussion dude.
Your argument about language is idioticly fallacious as I've already said.

Keep hoping - have you seen the site exmuslims.org? have you heard Irshad Manji - a self professed Muslim - acknowledge that the Qu'ran has intolerant verses in it. She uses the term Islamosupremasim - which is not relevant in this day and age.

I don't consider exmuslims to be the pinnacle of scholarship on anything, not even atheism. I don't know why that's your reference.
Is it so that you can strawman as confidently as you want?

Muslims will never ever be able to impose their laws on those outside the Muslim theocracies.

Muslims are the least of my worries, 99% of historic Muslim governments and leaderships have not been theocratic and logically a "Muslim theocracy" cannot be anything but an oxymoron, as there are no present living Prophets (Nabis) and even the only current Imam or successor of Muhammad (Aga Khan IV) argues for living secular in the present age.

There are massive epistemological issues with the idea of a theocracy in Islam, so the idea has always been rejected historically.

 

[ManSinha]

Saying "I am not a Muslim" ten times in a row is not really contributing any valuable discussion dude.
Your argument about language is idioticly fallacious as I've already said.

Now all you are doing is name calling - a sure sign that some one is upset they are on the losing side of a debate - where does the underlined statement even come in. And BTW "idiotcly" is not a word - either take some time to cool off or consult a dictionary. I have proved my language argument holds water for what it was intended. If you cannot see the forest for the trees go look elsewhere. Just you saying something does not make it so.

Muslims are the least of my worries, 90% of historic Muslim governments and leaderships have not been theocratic and logically a "Muslim theocracy" cannot be anything but an oxymoron, as there are no present living Prophets (Nabis) and even the only current claimant to being Imam or successor of Muhammad (Aga Khan IV) argues for living secular in the present age.

Which countries have any version of Sharia'h as part of their governing law?

 

[ClimbingTheLadder]

I am inferring based on your statement that the current world is "immoral and lost" - you said that - implying to a rational person that "morality" as practiced in other times was "better"

Which is not objective any way you slice it.
You're the one who started unveiling your views on 20th century supremacy back in post #81, not me. Clearly you stick to your view, based primarily on luxury it seems. I don't say that you're not allowed your opinion but it's deeply flawed, naive and unsubstantiated.

 

[danieldemol]

I find your reading comprehension to be problematic.

So walk me through my error/s

 

[ManSinha]

Clearly you stick to your view, based primarily on luxury it seems. I don't say that you're not allowed your opinion but it's deeply flawed, naive and unsubstantiated.

Name calling does not cut it like I mentioned above - I can do the same if I intended - and opinions are opinions you are entitled to yours - thankfully we are not in thought police state

Clearly you stick to your view, based primarily on luxury it seems

That is an inference and an incorrect one I might add - you know next to nothing about me - other than what you can glean from RF

I gave you my reasons - provide credible opposition if you can with actual facts and not mere epithets and name calling

 

[ClimbingTheLadder]

Now all you are doing is name calling

Now you're making accusations and not offering up evidence for it.

And BTW "idiotcly" is not a word

Typo

I have proved my language argument holds water for what it was intended. If you cannot see the forest for the trees go look elsewhere. Just you saying something does not make it so?

But I have proven above that you have made an illogical argument and I have also shown the extent of your assumptions but you have offered nothing in response to it.

Which countries have any version of Sharia'h as part of their governing law?

Technically speaking, none. And it is impossible to build a government on Sharia when it is a very very vague abstract concept related to Practice of religion.
You can build laws over consensus views based upon what various moral views are in Fiqh though, sure. This would be closer to a democracy by it's very argumentative nature of course.

 

[ManSinha]

But I have proven above that you have made an illogical argument and I have also shown the extent of your assumptions but you have offered nothing in response to it.

You have not proven squat except offer a contrary opinion. newsflash opinions / assertions are not "proof" - equally I can say that I have proven my point in the context of this thread - nothing more

Technically speaking, none. And it is impossible to build a law of Sharia when it is a very very vague abstract concept.
You can build laws over consensus views based upon what various moral views are in Fiqh though, sure. This would be closer to a democracy by it's very argumentative nature of course.

Hiding behind vaguely phrased babble

Which countries have Sharia'h law?

Commonly published sources disagree with your "technically none" reply - again a show that you are deliberately trying to misrepresent known facts and hide behind religiously based "technicalities" - a sure sign of a disingenuous dishonest point of view

 

[ClimbingTheLadder]

So walk me through my error/s

You're trying to take an analogy (of God's presence in things - or Tashbih) as a statement of scientific veracity relating to cosmology and astronomy, it's insanely hilarious.
If I need someone for tafsir reference, it ain't gonna be you.


And that aside, the verses you quoted were directly passages that address the way we perceive the world and on the merits of which we accept something. The ayah you quote speak about the senselessness of miracles according to the state of mind of most people. The ayah really address epistemological issues.

 

[danieldemol]

You're trying to take an analogy (of God's presence in things - or Tashbih) as a statement of scientific veracity relating to cosmology and astronomy, it's insanely hilarious.
If I need someone for tafsir reference, it ain't gonna be you.


And that aside, the verses you quoted were directly passages that address the way we perceive the world and on the merits of which we accept something. The ayah you quote speak about the senselessness of miracles according to the state of mind of most people. The ayah really address epistemological issues.

So to sum up it seems like you are proposing that we can’t take the verses referred to as having scientific accuracy, on which point I think we are agreed.

I have no idea how you got that these verses are an analogy of God’s presence in things, but I think that may be a side issue here.

God is either aware of what God is present in, or God is not aware of what God is present in. Therefore by proving that the author of the Quran is not adequately aware of atmospheric/heavenly phenomena we prove that the author is not God.

 

[ClimbingTheLadder]

So to sum up it seems like you are proposing that we can’t take the verses referred to as having scientific accuracy, on which point I think we are agreed.

I have no idea how you got that these verses are an analogy of God’s presence in things, but I think that may be a side issue here.

God is either aware of what God is present in, or God is not aware of what God is present in. Therefore by proving that the author of the Quran is not adequately aware of atmospheric/heavenly phenomena we prove that the author is not God.

You don't get it. Science is our venture, it is what God tells us to do in the Qur'an.
If you understand anything in the Qur'an and Islam, you'll know that the Islamic view is that the Universe is made out of signs (Ayah - the same word used for 'verses').
We are told to observe the signs and study them.
God does not do our work for us, same thing with prayer (salaah) and meditation (dhikr). We as humanity are encouraged to do these things and contemplate the universe, which glorifies God through doing so. The value of the Qur'an is above mere empirical scientific observation, which is open to anyone to do.
As it encourages you to participate in that - do not drag the Qur'an down to that level. The Qur'an is Divine Revelation, so it speaks from the macrocosmic perspective about the microcosm. Science is a small middle-man concerned with Dunya, so when reading the Qur'an, considerate it as such and then you won't fry your brain with such absurd views.

None of the verses you quoted address cosmology or astronomy. You also forget that metaphysics and cosmology are always mixed up by literalists (a literalist is someone that takes a symbol, a metaphor, an analogy and an allegory to be literal - thus failing to understand what something is actually saying).

Most Muslims would strongly regard your interpretation as absurd and laughable at best.

And again, your reading comprehension. These passages also clearly speak analogous to the magnitude of possibility that lies outside of regular experience, they are passages of awe.

 

[Augustus]

NO. Dhul Qarnayan is Cyrus The Great (a Persian monotheistic ruler). This is also supported strongly by the Tanakh ("Old Testament"). Cyrus The Great is considered an Abrahamic Prophet by both the Bible and by Islam.

That is modern revisionism based on the fact that DQ = Alexander is theologically problematic.

In Late antiquity though, Alexander was commonly associated with Abrahamic religion in contemporary traditions and so there were no such problems, hence it was accepted that DQ was Alexander. Contemporary evidence further strengthens the case, and we know there were Christian Alexander stories contemporary to Muhammad's lifetime which are very close in narrative structure to the ones in the Quran. Even the context in the Quran hints at something relating to contemporary narratives '

From the Islamic tradition, traditional exegesis inks Dhul Qarnayan to Alexander, for example ibn Abbas' tafsir. There is also evidence from hadith regarding the city of Merv being built by Dhul Qarnayan. Merv was also called Alexandria: the .

Narrated by Buraida 'I heard dear Prophet Muhammad :saw: saying that, "Soon many armies will depart after me. You must join the one going to Khurasan. Then you stay there in a city called Merv because it was built by Zulkarnain and he prayed for Barakah in it and threrefore, no harm will be done to those living there."


The difference comes down to operating with 2 different methodological frameworks:

Modern Islamic perspective: It can't possibly be Alexander as he was a polytheist, who is the best monotheistic figure?
Secular perspective: Who best fits the evidence?

It's very hard to make a case for Cyrus using the 2nd methodology.

 

[ClimbingTheLadder]

That is modern revisionism based on the fact that DQ = Alexander is theologically problematic.

In Late antiquity though, Alexander was commonly associated with Abrahamic religion in contemporary traditions and so there were no such problems, hence it was accepted that DQ was Alexander. Contemporary evidence further strengthens the case, and we know there were Christian Alexander stories contemporary to Muhammad's lifetime which are very close in narrative structure to the ones in the Quran. Even the context in the Quran hints at something relating to contemporary narratives '

There is no shred of evidence nor any reason to believe Dhul Qarnayan to be Alexander, zero, zilch, nada.
Cyrus The Great on the other hand, as I already said, has a massive reputation with all three Abrahamic religions (regarded by Jews too as one of the messiahs of the Tanakh). Everything about Cyrus The Great perfectly aligns to it, historically and textually.
If you want Tanakh proof, start with Isaiah which highly praises him again and again and again. Then move your way through the Nevi'im, where again he is typified as the ultimate messianic archetype (aside from David and Moses respectively).

The difference comes down to operating with 2 different methodological frameworks:

Modern Islamic perspective: It can't possibly be Alexander as he was a polytheist, who is the best monotheistic figure?
Secular perspective: Who best fits the evidence?

Claiming him to be Alexander is a modern thing though, it's an orientalist myth largely originated in the 19th century. Historically there has never been any agreement and every claim of Alexander comes from pure speculation (usually for more political reason, such as the Umayyad's self-identification) without any continuity (aka you're intentionally trying to create a contradiction by claiming your idea to be true).
The identity of Qarnayan is never addressed in any Hadith, so you will have to either look at what makes the most logical sense (Cyrus, again and again) or admit that you don't know because it's way too vague otherwise. Qarnayan is only mentioned in around 20 Ayah in Surah 18, it's not explicit enough to any degree to justify your Alexander myth - and at that, the Alexander myth doesn't date back very far according to primary sources. There is very direct and clear continuity with Cyrus, but zero with Alexander.
And aside from that there aren't only two options to who he may have been (setting aside from that fact that Surah al-Kahf is an apocalyptic Surah dealing with parallelisms of past matters to future eschatological matters, it's a very unique Surah for a lot of reasons...)