The Vortex beckons,how many contradictions and errors are in the Qur'an

[Jamal_a_Man]

in the prayer, salat, everyone stands shoulder to shoulder, next to rich, poor, black, white, weak, strong. we say the same thing and think the same thing and that is all for allah. rasicm is gone! we are all equal, we are all one, one in purpose. We are borthers in faith.

even today in a society whcih claims that their is no more racism, it is evident that it still exists. liverpool here in england if proof of that and if you go on xbox live today, where people feel they can freely speak their mind, the N word is the butt of every sentence. awefull.

 

[Perfect Circle]

so why am i not homosexual then if it was natural?
why didn't homosexuality exist 2 thousand years?
why didn't they exist 500 years ago?

Seriously man? Seriously..? Do I even need to respond to a statement as stupid as this?
I mean.. you can argue that homosexuality is a choice (although that's an extremely weak argument), but you can't deny that it existed throughout history. You seriously detract from any argument you could maybe scrape up when you say ignorant stuff like this.

It's times like that that I have to remind myself that I have intelligent muslim friends, and that you don't represent the entire muslim (or religious) population.

 

[Jamal_a_Man]

Seriously man? Seriously..? Do I even need to respond to a statement as stupid as this?
I mean.. you can argue that homosexuality is a choice (although that's an extremely weak argument), but you can't deny that it existed throughout history. You seriously detract from any argument you could maybe scrape up when you say ignorant stuff like this.

It's times like that that I have to remind myself that I have intelligent muslim friends, and that you don't represent the entire muslim (or religious) population.

i agree that homosexuality has existed throughout history, but i think you should refer to my earlier posts with regards to this matter.

in essence it is a failure to control ones desires. it is not natural, if it was there would be some benefit in the secual act betwen two males, except their are many medically related problems that occur as a result of anal sex.

 

[Perfect Circle]

Response: The word "first" is there? Then the next step is simple. Show it to us.

"Nay! but I am commanded to be the first of those who bow to God (in Islam)..."

"Nay! but I am commanded to be the first..."

"...I am commanded to be the first..."

Can you see it, yet?

Response: No. I see "first", not first "muslim".

Holy ****! I don't even care about the contradiction argument anymore... It's mind boggling how dishonest you are.

Let me break this down into the simplest form I can.

1. You demand to be shown that the word "first" is in the text.
2. It is clearly shown that the word "first" is in the text.
3. You move the goal posts and say that it is not followed by the word "muslim", which was not in your original demand.

Do you see how ridiculous this is? Now let's move on to step 4...

4. You realize that you're arguing on the level of a 4 year old and stop responding on this thread before you hurt yours and your fellow muslims arguments anymore.

And for the record, I don't generally like to respond this caustically. I was enjoying following the argument. And tbh, I think the muslim position on it has a little merit, but when Fati starts demanding ridiculous proofs and attacking native English speaker's English skills, it really gets to me.

 

[Perfect Circle]

i agree that homosexuality has existed throughout history, but i think you should refer to my earlier posts with regards to this matter.

in essence it is a failure to control ones desires. it is not natural, if it was there would be some benefit in the secual act betwen two males, except their are many medically related problems that occur as a result of anal sex.

Thanks for the response. I was mostly responding to the eselam's ignorant statements. And like I said, you can make a case that homosexuality is a choice, but I feel as though I've heard most of those arguments and I'm not convinced. I will admit that I think in some cases it's a choice, but there are simply too many variables to make a clear distinction either way.

Either way, we should probably reserve the "homosexuality is a choice" thing for another thread. I'd gladly meet you there if you would like to have an intelligent, respectful debate on the subject.

Edit: Actually it looks like someone's already opened one recently... http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...oving-homosexuality-has-biological-cause.html

 

[Jamal_a_Man]

Thanks for the response. I was mostly responding to the eselam's ignorant statements. And like I said, you can make a case that homosexuality is a choice, but I feel as though I've heard most of those arguments and I'm not convinced. I will admit that I think in some cases it's a choice, but there are simply too many variables to make a clear distinction either way.

Either way, we should probably reserve the "homosexuality is a choice" thing for another thread. I'd gladly meet you there if you would like to have an intelligent, respectful debate on the subject.

I agree, this is not the place. I would love to share my thoughts with you.

With regards to the "first" thing. Please refer to my answer which i have posted several times now for the benefit of several people. I have gotten some positive feedback and i feel that it may clarify any misgivings you may have.

Thanks brother.

Jamal

 

[Perfect Circle]

I agree, this is not the place. I would love to share my thoughts with you.

With regards to the "first" thing. Please refer to my answer which i have posted several times now for the benefit of several people. I have gotten some positive feedback and i feel that it may clarify any misgivings you may have.

Thanks brother.

Jamal

I read through your responses to this contradiction, and honestly, it looks like a cop out to me in the sense that you are interpreting what the words mean in a manner that circumvents the contradiction. It just seems like stretching it a bit. However, like I said, it was a well thought out response and I don't think it's something we can completely agree on. So I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that I simply don't understand the context of the situation as well as you.

What set me off about Fati's reply is that he literally claimed to not the see the word "first" there, and when it was clearly shown to him he demanded that it be followed by the word "muslim". That's all. Surely you can see how this would frustrate someone?

 

[YmirGF]

Who knows, but what i do know is that this is not a contradiction in the Quran. So how about you use some of that vast intelligence u seem to have hidden away and do what Muhammad (pbuh) did and READ the title of the thread.

Thanks, son, I did just that. You simply don't like the fact that I am using an example from the life of the prophet that is largely believed to be accurate to make my point.

With respect to Allah telling a lie, lets not be silly now.

Given his track record, and the allegation that Allah can do anything, I wouldn't put it out of the realm of probability. It's not like you would know if a god was actually lying to you.

Further, the hadith are liable to mistakes and i can not guarantee their accuracy to be 100%, thus we do not find ourselves necessarily in a situation where one or the other is a liar. i cud just be (and this is in the case that i agree with you saying muhammad was compelled) that the story has been exagerated or incorrect in the hadith when writen by his companions.

If you agree that Muhammad was indeed compelled then what precisely are you arguing about? In my books, that would be "case closed". For the record, you do not have the authority to cast aspersions on Buhkari.

Any ways, good luck finding an actual contradiction IN THE QURAN, and Good luck sticking to the topic, i trust that wont take too much of your superior inteligence to do.

What you dislike is that my assertion goes directly to the heart of the Qur'an. You have already admitted that Muhammad was in fact compelled, thus rendering "No compulsion in religion" to be null and void. BRAVO. That wasn't so hard now, was it?

ERROR #1 sustained, by a Muslim, no less.

It doesn't get much better than that.

 

[Perfect Circle]

ERROR #1 sustained, by a Muslim, no less.

It doesn't get much better than that.

Somehow, I think they'll see it differently...

 

[YmirGF]

Somehow, I think they'll see it differently...

You know it. It's always amusing watching them fall all over themselves though. It's sort of like watching an old Marx brothers movie in slo' mo'.

 

[Jamal_a_Man]

Thanks, son, I did just that. You simply don't like the fact that I am using an example from the life of the prophet that is largely believed to be accurate to make my point.

Given his track record, and the allegation that Allah can do anything, I wouldn't put it out of the realm of probability. It's not like you would know if a god was actually lying to you.

If you agree that Muhammad was indeed compelled then what precisely are you arguing about? In my books, that would be "case closed". For the record, you do not have the authority to cast aspersions on Buhkari.

What you dislike is that my assertion goes directly to the heart of the Qur'an. You have already admitted that Muhammad was in fact compelled, thus rendering "No compulsion in religion" to be null and void. BRAVO. That wasn't so hard now, was it?

ERROR #1 sustained, by a Muslim, no less.

It doesn't get much better than that.

It does not matter what is largely 'believed' to be accurate in hadith. what matters is that if any thing goes against the teachings of the quran then that is null and void or it is not accurate. Although i believe the bukhair hadith to be quite reliable i am sure that no muslim will say that it is undoubtely 100% accurate because at the end of the day it is writen by man and thus will inevitably have its own flaws. what is in agreement with islam is accepted. This is not so hard to accept is it? You see we muslims can take critisism where it is warranted.

Secondly, with regards to Allah being a lier, asthgfarula, Allah does only that which is Godly. End of.

I have never said that i believed Muhammad (pbuh) was Compelled at all. From my understanding Muhammad (pbuh) was searching himself for the truth and when it came to him he was not expecting it. He feared God greatly but he Accepted his duty with Open arms although he knew the task at hand was great.

What i dislike about your ascertations is that they have no base. You are trying to claim that Allah has contradicted himself when infact the stroy of Muhammad (pbuh) on Mout Hira on Laylatul-Qadr, is not in the Quran, and thus Allah cannot say that Muhammad (pbuh) was Compelled. Instead you are trying to use a hadith to find a contradiction and that may be possible, but with regards to the topic being "contraditions IN the Qur'an", this argument has no place and no substance.

Now it is plain and simple, that one cannot contradict himself if the two source are completely different and not from the same person. If Islam had a book more like that of the Christians, where the Infalable word of God was bound with the word of man and instead we had the Qur'an and Hadith in one then i would agree that yes there is a contradiction. But Praise be to Allah who knows men, and knows that his word alone is sufficient to guide.

again, anything which is in agreement with the quran is accepted, any thing other than that is rejected or is a misinterpretation. All muslims believe this.

Jamal

 

[Jamal_a_Man]

You know it. It's always amusing watching them fall all over themselves though. It's sort of like watching an old Marx brothers movie in slo' mo'.

your arrogance is what limits you dad!

 

[YmirGF]

It does not matter what is largely 'believed' to be accurate in hadith. what matters is that if any thing goes against the teachings of the quran then that is null and void or it is not accurate. Although i believe the bukhair hadith to be quite reliable i am sure that no muslim will say that it is undoubtely 100% accurate because at the end of the day it is writen by man and thus will inevitably have its own flaws. what is in agreement with islam is accepted. This is not so hard to accept is it? You see we muslims can take critisism where it is warranted.

But Jamal, the historical record of the prophet is still a cornerstone of Islam. Granted, the Qur'an does trump all else, however we are still left with the uncomfortable fact that Muhammad was indeed compelled to take on his role as a prophet. I doubt he would have done so if he had not thought his experience was compelling enough.

Secondly, with regards to Allah being a lier, asthgfarula, Allah does only that which is Godly. End of.

And... you are an expert on what god does?

I have never said that i believed Muhammad (pbuh) was Compelled at all.

Ok, you only alluded to agreeing. I'll give you that. I misread your comment and should have realized that Muslims would never agree with me that quickly.

What i dislike about your ascertations is that they have no base. You are trying to claim that Allah has contradicted himself when infact the stroy of Muhammad (pbuh) on Mout Hira on Laylatul-Qadr does not show any sign of Muhammad being Compelled.

Forgive me, Jamal, but that is exactly what Verse 3, Volume 1, Chapter 1 shows. I don't have to read anything into it. It is clear that Gabriel is compelling Muhammad to recite! Again, this event is at the very front of the work by Buhkari. That means he had little reservations about the authenticity of the passage. If he did not have any doubt of the authenticity then I do not see that scholars since him have much of a leg to stand on.

Instead you are trying to use a hadith to find a contradiction and that may be possible, but with regards to the topic being "contraditions IN the Qur'an", this argument has no place and no substance.

I disagree. It goes to the very heart of the Qur'an as we have an example right out of Muhammad's experience that shows that there is indeed compulsion in religion.

again, anything which is in agreement with the quran is accepted, any thing other than that is rejected or is a misinterpretation. All muslims believe this.

I understand this, Jamal.

Then, let us leave this aspect aside. Forget the embarrassing hadith. I don't need it.

The very idea that there is no compulsion is religion is both true and false, at the same time. Let me explain.

In one sense it is true that you can never force belief onto another. Perhaps if you tortured someone long enough, but I don't think many would stoop to that level. On this we can agree. I have no right to force my religion onto you and likewise you have no right to force your religion onto me. Neither of us can FORCE the other to believe. SO far, so good. That is the context where the statement IS correct... or should be correct...

Where it is incorrect is subjectively. Subjectively, religion is all about compulsion. If we didn't find our religious experiences to be compelling we would not believe the things that we do. If I had not had the incredible experiences I have had I would not believe in the things I do. I am sure the same could be said for you when you investigated Islam as a young man. You found evidence that presented a compelling case for Islam that fit your thinking. In THAT sense you were compelled to believe what you chose to accept.

Likewise, after deep religious experiences, the individual is normally driven, nay compelled, to share what they have experienced with others. Deep spiritual experiences are extraordinary motivators and quite frankly, the individual cannot, generally speaking, keep their experience to themselves. Again, they are compelled to share what they feel they have discovered. In THIS sense, what we know as religion began as the compulsion of those who underwent profound experiences. In this regard, there is no compulsion in religion couldn't get much further from the truth.

Without individuals being compelled by their experiences we would not have religion as we know it.

 

[YmirGF]

your arrogance is what limits you dad!

Oh, trust me, Jamal, my arrogance has no limits!

 

[Jamal_a_Man]

Oh, trust me, Jamal, my arrogance has no limits!

lol haha very good!

Very good penultimate post! i can see where you are coming from on the "Muhammad (pbuh) was compelled" buisness. I am glad you have looked and thought into it soo much. I am Also sure that you have understood my stand on this situation and also respect it. I think if we go on any further with that particular discussion we will literally be only repeating all that we have said previously.

With regards to what you said at the end, yes it is true that no one has the right to compell another or force another to believe as that is not possible. Only Allah has the power to do that.

And i agree the one must in a way be compelled to believe when they have had certain experiences that are great enough to bring about a change in their spirituality. But this compellingness (proabbaly not a word) lol is one that occurs in one's self, no other person is involved. No one should compel another to (or force another to) accept any religion, that is the context as far as i know.

But i think we are only starting to play with words, as you could also call it enlightenment as well as being compelled
However, i take only what Allah gives to me from the quran. however, again i see where you are coming from, and i respec that also.

Jamal

 

[Fatihah]

Holy ****! I don't even care about the contradiction argument anymore... It's mind boggling how dishonest you are.

Let me break this down into the simplest form I can.

1. You demand to be shown that the word "first" is in the text.
2. It is clearly shown that the word "first" is in the text.
3. You move the goal posts and say that it is not followed by the word "muslim", which was not in your original demand.

Do you see how ridiculous this is? Now let's move on to step 4...

4. You realize that you're arguing on the level of a 4 year old and stop responding on this thread before you hurt yours and your fellow muslims arguments anymore.

And for the record, I don't generally like to respond this caustically. I was enjoying following the argument. And tbh, I think the muslim position on it has a little merit, but when Fati starts demanding ridiculous proofs and attacking native English speaker's English skills, it really gets to me.

Response: Again, another display of a lack of comprehension. Now let me break it down to you. My original statement is in post 16 which clearly states that the term "first muslim" is not there. Then, in that very same post, I said that the word "first" is not there. Meaning that in the phrase "first muslim", the word "first" is not there, not that the word "first" is not in the text. So when I asked for you to show me the word "first", I'm asking for proof that the word "first" occurs in the alleged phrase "first muslim", not "first" in the text.

So as for worrying about the muslim position, worry no more. For the muslim position is that there is absolutely no errors or contridictions in the qur'an but only the feeble efforts of non-muslims desperately trying a play on words to make it seem as such. And thanks to your own words above, another non-muslim has once again demonstrated and proven my very point. Thanks for the confirmation.

Btw, you do realize that your display of being unable to comprehend simple english hurts your credibility, not islam. I would advise you to take your own advice and stop responding to this thread before you continue to hurt the argument and discredit the intellect of all non-muslims.

 

[Aquitaine]

Response: Again, another display of a lack of comprehension. Now let me break it down to you. My original statement is in post 16 which clearly states that the term "first muslim" is not there. Then, in that very same post, I said that the word "first" is not there. Meaning that in the phrase "first muslim", the word "first" is not there, not that the word "first" is not in the text. So when I asked for you to show me the word "first", I'm asking for proof that the word "first" occurs in the alleged phrase "first muslim", not "first" in the text.

So as for worrying about the muslim position, worry no more. For the muslim position is that there is absolutely no errors or contridictions in the qur'an but only the feeble efforts of non-muslims desperately trying a play on words to make it seem as such. And thanks to your own words above, another non-muslim has once again demonstrated and proven my very point. Thanks for the confirmation.

Btw, you do realize that your display of being unable to comprehend simple english hurts your credibility, not islam. I would advise you to take your own advice and stop responding to this thread before you continue to hurt the argument and discredit the intellect of all non-muslims.

What do you think the text means then by "first", given the context of the story?

Tell us, since you're Muslim (and apprently therefore have better knowledge of this), what was meant by "first" in those texts..... first what?

 

[Jamal_a_Man]

Response: Again, another display of a lack of comprehension. Now let me break it down to you. My original statement is in post 16 which clearly states that the term "first muslim" is not there. Then, in that very same post, I said that the word "first" is not there. Meaning that in the phrase "first muslim", the word "first" is not there, not that the word "first" is not in the text. So when I asked for you to show me the word "first", I'm asking for proof that the word "first" occurs in the alleged phrase "first muslim", not "first" in the text.

So as for worrying about the muslim position, worry no more. For the muslim position is that there is absolutely no errors or contridictions in the qur'an but only the feeble efforts of non-muslims desperately trying a play on words to make it seem as such. And thanks to your own words above, another non-muslim has once again demonstrated and proven my very point. Thanks for the confirmation.

Btw, you do realize that your display of being unable to comprehend simple english hurts your credibility, not islam. I would advise you to take your own advice and stop responding to this thread before you continue to hurt the argument and discredit the intellect of all non-muslims.

I concur, playing with words..... tut tut tut

Jamal

 

[England my lionheart]

have you never stolen some thing in your life? lied? broken any ones trust? misguided any one? hurt any one? refrianed from helping when you could have?

i can guarantee you that everyone on this forum (EVERYONE - even my own brothers) have done much that is unjust and wrong in their life.

the difference between us and you is that we reflect on it and we then try and change our ways to not repeat those mistakes. You may infact do the same, the difference is that you do it on your own, we do it with the help of Allah.

If you dont believe in Allah, that is your choice. if you believe you do not do wrong, and thus do not need forgivness that is your choice and your misfortune. if you think i can prove to you that Allah (God) exists then you are in false belief, for you will never believe untill you see him with your eyes, and that will not happen.

Even seeing does'nt necessarily mean believing,IMO we are different though in that your thinking is done for you whereas i think for myself

 

[Jamal_a_Man]

What do you think the text means then by "first", given the context of the story?

Tell us, since you're Muslim (and apprently therefore have better knowledge of this), what was meant by "first" in those texts..... first what?

ill tell you, the "first of their time to believe!"

that is the context.

and even if it was muslim, it makes no difference as it is Allah QUOTING ANOTHER, thus an HISTORICAL ACCOUNT of what that individual said. thus CANNOT be contradictory with respect to ALLAH, or the QURAN. The verse is not talking about who was or was not the first, but how they came to believe and what they said to ALLAH once they Believed.

If that is not clear by now, you must be Very dense...