Quran is free of errors

[YmirGF]

If the Qu'ran really is "for all human," and if everything really is "Insh2lah" (God's will), why isn't Islam the ONLY religion?

And why would the "perfect" religion appear to be a thuggish brat in the schoolyard of life that doesn't play well with the other children?

 

[alwayswondering]

First Islamic Inscription May Solve Qur'an Question: Discovery News

 

[YmirGF]

First Islamic Inscription May Solve Qur'an Question: Discovery News

And if this articles is true, then it defeats the notion that the Qur'an is a clear document as the words contained in it can have, quite intentionally, different meanings, which by default, would make it far from being "clear".

 

[alwayswondering]

And if this articles is true, then it defeats the notion that the Qur'an is a clear document as the words contained in it can have, quite intentionally, different meanings, which by default, would make it far from being "clear".

Agreed.

Written Arabic is primarily phonetic, with an emphasis on the non-vowel sounds. Accents provide the voweled pronunciation.

Example (using English so it makes sense):

"bn" = "been"
"b'n" = "bean"

Thus the difference noted in the article about hand and fingertips.

One would think that if God were going to write a book, He would write a book in, first of all a language everyone could understand so there wouldn't be anything lost in translation, but also a language that wouldn't be subject to interpretation.

This lack of accent marks, actually, is the crux of the confusion behind the Qu'ranic command/permission (depends on how one reads it) to discipline/admonish/beat wives. Just sayin'.

 

[YmirGF]

One would think that if God were going to write a book, He would write a book in, first of all a language everyone could understand so there wouldn't be anything lost in translation, but also a language that wouldn't be subject to interpretation.

This lack of accent marks, actually, is the crux of the confusion behind the Qu'ranic command/permission (depends on how one reads it) to discipline/admonish/beat wives. Just sayin'.

This is exactly my point. I'd rather expect a being worthy of being called a god to come up with something considerably better than the "noble" Qur'an.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

Use a better language, like Sanskrit

 

[TashaN]

But TashaN, to claim that the koran contained modern scientific knowledge when that same modern scientific knowledge was not discovered by using the koran debunks that claim on its face.
The fact that no peer-reviewed science ever originated from using the koran speaks volumes.

That's a valid argument which can be used to attack the idea that Quran have some modern scientific knowledge, but it doesn't explain why the Quran contain modern scientific knowledge. Also, the early Muslim scholars were inspired deeply by the Quran but maybe not in a direct way as what some modern scholars sugguest when dealing with the modern scientific discoveries. That's why many Muslim scholars seem to be skpetical sometimes of the notion that the Quran resembles some modern scientific discoveries, and they accept from it anything clear, but not the vague ones.

That's why it's still a matter of opinion and it can be examined if the verse really speak of such thing or not for the verse is avilable for everyone to see.

Why are you seemingly defending these farcical claims?

Tell me why i shouldn't?

I believe the Quran to be the word of God, the Creator, so anything is possible.

You are making the dangerous assumption that these Muslims had a right case to begin with.

Of course they do. Tell me why they don't.

In this case those Muslims were simply flat out wrong. Why are you hesitant to see that?

Wrong in doing what excatly? in interpreting these opinions or in bringing up the issue in the first place that the Quran contain such modrn discoveries?

 

[TashaN]

I think you know very well that I am Paul. I didn't realize that this was open to any kind of confusion, lol.

You misunderstand me, dearest TarshaN. I didn't say that it was without literary merit. In my view, and if only in my view, it falls far short of being what I would personally expect a god to write. It does meet the criteria for being what could be written by a man however. A small, but somewhat important difference, my friend. Frankly, I am unaware of any existing linguists who are experts on what a god would write, so their sentiments have no meaning to me beyond their face value.

To me, they are facts, TashaN. I simply resent having myself included in something I will have no part of and will never condone.

Again... I didn't say it had no literary merit, TashaN. Do try to keep up. :flirt:

ALL what you say is plain facts and what others say are nothing but opinions, and they are wrong most of the time. Yep, i understand that.

 

[McBell]

That's a valid argument which can be used to attack the idea that Quran have some modern scientific knowledge, but it doesn't explain why the Quran contain modern scientific knowledge. Also, the early Muslim scholars were inspired deeply by the Quran but maybe not in a direct way as what some modern scholars sugguest when dealing with the modern scientific discoveries. That's why many Muslim scholars seem to be skpetical sometimes of the notion that the Quran resembles some modern scientific discoveries, and they accept from it anything clear, but not the vague ones.

That's why it's still a matter of opinion and it can be examined if the verse really speak of such thing or not for the verse is avilable for everyone to see.



Tell me why i shouldn't?

I believe the Quran to be the word of God, the Creator, so anything is possible.



Of course they do. Tell me why they don't.



Wrong in doing what excatly? in interpreting these opinions or in bringing up the issue in the first place that the Quran contain such modrn discoveries?

Would you please be the first in this thread to present some of these modern scientific discoveries that the Koran speaks of?

Thus far all that has been presented have been serious fluctuation using the Forer Effect. Some even stretching the Forer Effect to utmost limit.

 

[TashaN]

If one needs to know Arabic to appreciate the "divine" literary quality of the Quran (because in translation it isn't very good) then it's not a miracle for all people. However if the literary superiority of the Quran over all other texts is, as the Muslims believe, like the superiority of Allah over his creation, then surely some of it's superiority ought to spill over into translation. There are many books which retain much of their quality in translation, Nietzche, Dostoyevksy, the Iliad, the Bible, the Bhagavad Gita , surely the Quran ought to be better than all of these.

Translations are the work of human beings, while the Arabic Quran is the pure words of Allah. Allah chose for the Quran to be a miracle in term of it's linguistic structure because it was first sent to the people of Arabia who were great poets and advanced in the language, and he challenged them to produce a chapter like it, or even a verse, but they couldn't. It's like when he sent Moses with certain miracles which can challenge the advance in magic in that time, or in the time of Jesus, when they were very advanced in medicine.

If Allah wanted, he would have sent the Quran in all the languages of the world, but he sent it only in arabic, for if it was sent in other languages, it would require more messengers to carry out this message, or it would require that one messenger be able to speak all the languages of the world.

The miracle behind the Quran being only in pure arabic is beyond what you might think at first. You will need to read more about the enviornment at that time to understand more what i'm talking about here.

Firstly, imagine if Prophet Mohammed came reciting the Quran in Greek, Hebrew, etc, they would have said that he has copied it from the scriptures of the Jews or the Christians, but in the contrary, Mohammed was meant to be an illiterate in order to build his case. It was well known that Mohammed was an illiterate man who couldn't write nor read even his own language, arabic, so it would be impossible for him to copy it from somewhere else.

Secondly, Quran came in "pure" arabic with a great details in order to refute any claim that this might have been copied from somewhere else.

That's why Allah said:

[82] Do they not consider the Qur-an (with care)? Had it been from other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much discrepancy. (Quran 4:82)

Finally, i think there are alot of authorised translations which serve as a way to understand the Quran because it's an attempt to interpret the Quran, because you can't fully translate the Quran. In order to know the excact words of God, you will have to read it in arabic.

 

[TashaN]

If the Qu'ran really is "for all human," and if everything really is "Insh2lah" (God's will), why isn't Islam the ONLY religion?

Allah gave human beings "free will", unlike angels. That's why human beings are special.

 

[themadhair]

but it doesn't explain why the Quran contain modern scientific knowledge.

The koran does not contain any modern scientific knowledge. You can twist and over-interpret the words to make yourself think so, but the acid test is in producing the goods rather than making it fit discoveries already made. Any piece of text that is sufficiently vague can be interpreted to mean something if you twist it hard enough. You are not unique when you do this to the koran and you look no less ridiculous than when Christians do it to the bible, people do it to Nostradamus, etc.

Tell me why i shouldn't?

The reason you should not be defending farcical claims is because it makes you, and your interpretation of the koran, seem like a farce. I’m rather surprised you needed me to spell this out for you.

Of course they do. Tell me why they don't.

Read some of the threads on this where this point has been argued, and at some points at great length.

in interpreting these opinions or in bringing up the issue in the first place that the Quran contain such modrn discoveries?

Wrong in the claim that the koran contains modern discoveries. They are wrong for claiming the koran has anything to do with science. Read some of threads on this.[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

 

[themadhair]

Threads where this has been discussed at length:
http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...-authenticity-glorious-quran-post1552724.html
http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...tes/79650-islam-tanakh-bible-post1532437.html

 

[gnostic]

The reason you should not be defending farcical claims is because it makes you, and your interpretation of the koran, seem like a farce. I’m rather surprised you needed me to spell this out for you.

I don't think any Muslim understand can this.

The spurious claim within the Qur'an to be scientific can only come about when you twist the words and meaning out of all proportions.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I don't think any Muslim understand can this.

The spurious claim within the Qur'an to be scientific can only come about when you twist the words and meaning out of all proportions.

You know, I've been thinking about this.

I believe that, on an intellectual level, they must know that the Koran contains errors, and that it is no different than any other sacred text. This is also true of the most devout Christians.

I think that the difference lies in the amount of indoctrination that they receive in their youth. It must be simply overwhelming - to the point that they just can't bring themselves to even challenge what they have been spoonfed.

It's the only explanation that I can find.

Just to be sure that I am not misunderstood - I feel this also applies to many fundamentalist Christians as well.

 

[gnostic]

I agreed that the fundamentalist Christians are the same way.

They will and can accept dogma without questioning against rationality and common sense.

 

[themadhair]

I watched Jesus Camp last night and it really lends weight to TVOR's hypothesis.

 

[YmirGF]

It's the only explanation that I can find.

Just to be sure that I am not misunderstood - I feel this also applies to many fundamentalist Christians as well.

Well, this lump o' flesh certainly would agree. I remember growing up, thinking that all Christian's were insane. (Sorry, in my part of the world, Muslim's weren't a significant group before the 90's -- even now they are pretty marginal.) After 9/11, like many others, I began to investigate Islam and quite frankly, the more I read and understand about Islam, the less reasonable it becomes. From the start two things showed up in a glaring fashion. One was what seemed to me to be a glaring lack of spirituality, stifled by religious dogma as well as a distinct lack of joy. The last point is exemplied in Ayatolla Khomeini's commentary:

"Allah did not create man so that he could have fun. The aim of creation was for mankind to be put to the test through hardship and prayer. An Islamic regime must be serious in every field. There are no jokes in Islam. There is no humor in Islam. There is no fun in Islam. There can be no fun and joy in whatever is serious."

After learning about Islam, Christian's no longer look quite so crazy. The likes of Freddie Phelps, well, sure, but for the most part they are the least of our concerns (but still bear watching - of course.) I am quickly coming around to the idea that we should start legislation against Islam and any religion that gets too big for its britches.

 

[riverfox]

After 9/11 you began to investigate Islam, but not very well.
Instead of throwing some random thoghts of yours about Islam,why not trying to discuss the holy Qur'an? That is what islam teaches.What muslims did the 9\11 attacks?
Don’t judge a car by its driver
If you want to judge how good is the latest model of the "Mercedes" car and a person who does not know how to drive sits at the steering wheel and bangs up the car, who will you blame? The car or the driver? But naturally, the driver. To analyze how good the car is, a person should not look at the driver but see the ability and features of the car. How fast is it, what is its average fuel consumption, what are the safety measures, etc. Even if I agree for the sake of argument that the Muslims are bad, we can’t judge Islam by its followers? If you want to judge how good Islam is then judge it according to its authentic sources, i.e. the Glorious Qur’an and the Sahih Hadith.

 

[themadhair]

@ riverfox

Wot? No one is challenging Muslims – we are challenging claims made by Muslims. And, ffs, if you had read this thread you would have seen that the koran was the only thing being scrutinised (in the context of Muslims on this forum claiming it to be scientifically accurate).

My view on this is that, as a work of science, the koran is complete crap. Nice poetry, random story telling and very interesting turns of phrase. But when it comes to science it is still 7th century cum creationist junk.