There are no errors in the Qur'an

[Augustus]

I Think you need to read the history how these empires were destroyed

They fought each other too much leaving them weak and bankrupt, were affected badly by plague, many of their Arab tribe mercenaries went off to join the other tribes either because they weren't getting paid any more or there were richer pickings in raiding the Empires, etc.

Diverse groups of tribesman began raiding the Empires and over time they realised that there was little coming back at them which emboldened them to go further and further. Eventually there were sizable invasions rather than small raiding parties.

Being militarily weak, after losing a single major battle each, both of the 2 Empires were practically defenceless and easy to conquer.

The proto-Muslims were not the first group of tribesman to win battles against the major Empires, the only difference was that they were intent on conquering and occupation and settling whereas previous victors had mostly been content with looting and extracting large payments in tribute.

How do you see it happening?

But can you tell me why the Europeans colonized most of Africa and Asia

Same reason that the 'Arabs' colonised the ME and North Africa: ideology, money and power.

Islam means peace and totally against this horror

Do you believe that the expansion of the Rashidun Caliphate would be best characterised by the word 'peaceful'?

Why do you view it as being different from the Empire building of the Romans or the Persians, which was certainly far from peaceful.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

When Mohammed came with his mission, he found the Arabs there in the Arabic peninsula in very drastic dire situation. Virtues were seen as evil and evil was seen as virtue.

And since we have only Muslim sources on this it's hard to view them as trustworthy since they'd do everything they could to vilify the belief system Islam was attempting to replace. Further, Islam hasn't really improved this situation.

Raiding and looting on each other was seen as courage and knighthood.

And that's completely different to how things were afterwards

After very short time Mohammed managed to change these uncivilized communities

Hold up, you think pre-Islamic Arabia was uncivilised? They had a complex religious system; they had established trade networks over vast distances; they had numbers, they had writing!! Arabian culture didn't magically become complex as a result of Islam taking over; it was already well-established when Islam showed up to take power.

to teachers for the whole world giving and setting principles and guidelines from Quran and Mohammed teachings of justice,equality, altruism and progress. In less than two decades they managed to denominate over both the Roman and Persian empires.

It's worth noting that Arab contributions to science were pretty much non-existent until after they conquered more scientifically literate societies like the Eastern Romans & the Persians. They only managed to do so because both cultures had become weakened by decades of fighting each other and through natural disasters. If the Arabs had tried the same thing several hundred years prior then they'd probably be another footnote in Persian or Byzantine histories.

Oh yeah, it's also worth noting that even centuries after the Islamisation of Persia it was still a noticeable phenomenon that Persians tended to be learned & scholarly (not just in Islam but also in the sciences & other things) than Arabs.

 

[Augustus]

Hold up, you think pre-Islamic Arabia was uncivilised? They had a complex religious system;

A couple of the better known 'uncivilised' religions in the peninsula were called Christianity and Judaism. Unsurprising really as the audience of the Quran is clearly assumed to be familiar enough with their stories that many events and characters can be alluded to without actually being explained or narrated.

The 'isolated backwater untouched by civilisation' schtick, as you note, is anachronistic. It was a fairly integrated part of the most important region in the World and was the location of several wars between Jews and Christians in the 6th C.

It's simply an attempt to make the origins 'miraculous' rather than as a product of a broader 7th C Abrahamic environment (especially a Syriac Christian one).

 

[Baroodi]

Firstly, what civilisation you talk about in societies that bury baby girls a live because they may commit adultery and tarnish family reputation with infamy . what civilisation in worshiping statues and stones or in seeing looting as great honour
secondly, the war between Islam and the Persian and Roman empires was trigerred when these empires started to encroach and invade Islam Territories
Thirdly a Greased Scotsman said the scientific advances happened after the Islam invasion to the Persian and Roman empires, then the paradox in this: where were these advances before Islam, Why these took a momentum after Islam lead by unlettered man
fourthly: Islam did not move out of the trench for money and power and to impoverish other nations as Europe did, but in self defence. Muslims early on had to flee and immigrate to Ethiopia twice and then to Madeena because of continuous oppression and killing

 

[Augustus]

the war between Islam and the Persian and Roman empires was trigerred when these empires started to encroach and invade Islam Territories

That's not actual history though.

In reality it was the other way round, repeated raiding and incursions by Arab tribes that started long before Muhammad was even born. Due to Roman/Persian weakness and their reliance on Arab tribes to provide military manpower and border security, over time these raids grew in number and size with increasing defections away from the Empires.

Arab troops learned discipline and military strategy from serving as Roman auxiliary forces, and their leaders were able to control larger armies due to increased wealth and organisational capacities that came from prolonged interaction with the major Empires.

This is exactly what happened to the Western Roman Empire with the Germanic tribes that later sacked Rome. Eventually the subordinate realises they are actually as strong as the master and decide they want to take over themselves.

 

[Baroodi]

That's not actual history though.

In reality it was the other way round, repeated raiding and incursions by Arab tribes that started long before Muhammad was even born. Due to Roman/Persian weakness and their reliance on Arab tribes to provide military manpower and border security, over time these raids grew in number and size with increasing defections away from the Empires.

Arab troops learned discipline and military strategy from serving as Roman auxiliary forces, and their leaders were able to control larger armies due to increased wealth and organisational capacities that came from prolonged interaction with the major Empires.

This is exactly what happened to the Western Roman Empire with the Germanic tribes that later sacked Rome. Eventually the subordinate realises they are actually as strong as the master and decide they want to take over themselves.

 

[Baroodi]

Every one usually right the history on his own words not on the actual facts. The areas of the currently are Iraq and Sham were ruled by Arab kings but under the Persian crown and the Roman crown respectively. In other words they were under ocupation and they were colonies. Muslims find no time to rest after they cleared idolatry when they were faced with threats from the northern borders

 

[Shad]

Every one usually right the history on his own words not on the actual facts. The areas of the currently are Iraq and Sham were ruled by Arab kings but under the Persian crown and the Roman crown respectively. In other words they were under ocupation and they were colonies. Muslims find no time to rest after they cleared idolatry when they were faced with threats from the northern borders

No they had vassal and feudal contracts with both. Prior to this system was a governor system based on the Roman system which was used until the 4th century

 

[Augustus]

Every one usually right the history on his own words not on the actual facts. The areas of the currently are Iraq and Sham were ruled by Arab kings but under the Persian crown and the Roman crown respectively. In other words they were under ocupation and they were colonies.

You do realise that the Levant (Sham) was not populated by Arabs? Ethnically and culturally they were far closer to what are now Southern Europeans than Arabs.

The capital of the Persian Empire was in 'Iraq', and again it wasn't full of Arabs, who were the people of the peninsula.

The Arabs conquered these people, they didn't 'liberate' them. They became culturally Arab (although many are still not ethnically Arab) over centuries of what you term 'occupation' and 'colonialism' (it's probably not very helpful to think of history in modern terms such as colonialism though).

 

[Faithofchristian]

Ok, is it not written in the Q'uran that the Almighty God can do all things, that there is nothing the Almighty God can't do ?

That even in Islam will say the Almighty God can do all things.theres nothing Almighty God can't not do.

If this is true according to the Q'uran and prophet Muhammad.

Then why the Almighty God did not give prophet Muhammad the capability to read and write?
As all the other Prophet's?

Seeing prophet muhammad could not read or write, how would he know for sure what his wife and friends wrote down?

All the other Prophet's were able to read and write, and did not depend on someone else to write or read for them?

So there's an error in the Q'uran and Muhammad

 

[Magus]

Quran 1:1 - In the name of Allah, the 'entirely merciful'

Quran 3:2 - Say to those who disbelieve, "You will be overcome and gathered together to Hell, and wretched is the resting place.

Merciful means 'bringing someone relief from something unpleasant' , so Quran 1:1
contradicts the entire beliefs of the Quran

.What is also error, are the countless references to 'Hell Fire', throughout the Quran in it's stories
about Adam, Abraham and Moses, the 'Hell Fire' motif is an invention of Christianity, hence why it doesn't appear in Judaism.

Quran 14:22 - And Satan Saith..... Mythological protagonist ?
Quran 14:50 - The fires covering their faces
Quran 71:25 - They were drowned then made to enter a fire
Quran 2:222 - Menstruation is an illness (it is not )

The Quran mentions Adam, Abraham, Ishmael, Jacob, Jesus and Moses, whom never existed, thus that's an error too.

 

[Spiderman]

Since the Bible and the Koran have errors , let's walk with God and not devote oneself to either Ancient text.

Follow your heart over an old book that promotes bigotry, violence, and torture.

 

[firedragon]

A question I have is, why do non-muslims quote ahadith as if that is the absolute truth?

 

[Faithofchristian]

Since the Bible and the Koran have errors , let's walk with God and not devote oneself to either Ancient text.

Follow your heart over an old book that promotes bigotry, violence, and torture.

Well evidently that is exactly what people are doing, that's why there is so much bigotry, violence and torture in the world to day and not just to day, but throughout history.
People follow their hearts thinking they have the right way, but their way has lead to many bigotry, violence and torture throughout the world.
Therefore what seems right to a man, the end thereof is death.

 

[Faithofchristian]

The Q'uran is full errors. The first and biggest error is muhammad having his wife read and write for him.
Knowing how muhammad treated women, would his wife not deceive muhammad not writing what Muhammad wanted Written down ?
Knowing Muhammad could not read or write.
If your husband treated women and you the way Muhammad did, what would you do, to retaliate against him. Knowing your husband could not read or write ?

 

[Mister Silver]

Edited for title reference: There are no errors in the Qur'an

That's akin to muslim's stating there are no gay muslims, which is false.

 

[Faithofchristian]

A question I have is, why do non-muslims quote ahadith as if that is the absolute truth?

The same reason, why do non-christians
( Muslims )quote the bible as if that is the absolute truth.

 

[Augustus]

The Q'uran is full errors. The first and biggest error is muhammad having his wife read and write for him.

The Quran doesn't unequivocally state that Muhammad was illiterate. There is a verse that is often interpreted to mean he was an illiterate prophet, but it could also mean a gentile prophet or a prophet not versed in [previous] scripture.

Also Islamic history doesn't have it that his wife wrote it all down for him. It says that it was transmitted orally and only written down later by numerous people.

 

[YmirGF]

Also Islamic history doesn't have it that his wife wrote it all down for him. It says that it was transmitted orally and only written down later by numerous people.

Indeed, I've never heard that idea before and further, it flies in the well established knowledge of the oral tradition that existed. They memorized; they didn't write. Writing came later...

A question I have is, why do non-muslims quote ahadith as if that is the absolute truth?

I don't. The thing is that Sunni Muslims have a fairly refined pecking order of the ahadiths, you know, the Sahih thingy. So, non-Muslims will often turn to those highly regarded texts which are considerably more unseemly, at times, than the Qur'an and contain all kinds of loopy stories about Muhammad.

Where non-Muslims fall flat is usually when taking less reputable hadiths and trying to make a big deal out of them. The point is that if the Muslim adherents don't take some hadiths seriously why should anyone else?

 

[YmirGF]

That's akin to muslim's stating there are no gay muslims, which is false.

The idea of the Qur'an being error free is also a bit of a trap. Just because something is logically consistent does not mean that it is true; it just means it is logically consistent. The second big problem for people attacking the Qur'an is that Muslim have already argued every possible instance a thousand times over and can perform metal gymnastics that would make an Olympic class athlete blanch. There is no new argument possible that has not already been covered hundreds, thousands, of times in the past. It's akin to sticking your hand into a hornet's nest that unless you are extremely knowledgeable to begin with you will be shot down - rapidly. Oh, and logic has nothing to do with it. Hope this helps.