There are no errors in the Qur'an

[Jabar]

Jabr, just to let you know, you are actually infuriating. No-one is going to debate with you, because you are pretentious and cannot admit when you are wrong.

Listen brother.

I am sorry if i appear pretentious to you.

But i am not.

These are just mere misconceptions you and the people make who say these verses are errors.

I would say the same to you, that you are pretentious and do not admit that you yourself is wrong.

When looking for an error, do not just have complete confidence in it and post it.

Look at the other persons perspective. As i do, and then reach a conclusion from there.

 

[Berserk]

Islamacist professors have told me that the Quran is riddled with contradictions arising from its stages of composition. But consider what it says about Jesus (Isa). True, the Quran confirms Jesus' virgin birth. Much of what it says derives from late 2nd to 5th century Christian infancy Gospels, which are universally discredited as legends. But the Quran also perpetuates an early discredited Gnostic heresy that Jesus was never crucified; it only appeared that way. In modern times this heresy reappers in occult books like "A Course in Miracles," and "Seth Speaks," a book of alleged channeled material.

 

[Jabar]

Islamacist professors have told me that the Quran is riddled with contradictions arising from its stages of composition. But consider what it says about Jesus (Isa). True, the Quran confirms Jesus' virgin birth. Much of what it says derives from late 2nd to 5th century Christian infancy Gospels, which are universally discredited as legends. But the Quran also perpetuates an early discredited Gnostic heresy that Jesus was never crucified; it only appeared that way. In modern times this heresy reappers in occult books like "A Course in Miracles," and "Seth Speaks," a book of alleged channeled material.

Because Jesus was never crucified, do you believe in the Trinity?


Jesus dying on the cross is illogical.

 

[Augustus]

So essentially you are saying what plenty of other Apologists say . . . that a religion's authority (in this case Abdullah Yusuf ‘Ali) don't understand their own religion either?
Come on . . . this is as absurd as it gets, granted Arabic is one slippery language and can be twisted into meaning several things (to that I give credit, I like that), the ERRORS I posted are clear to most, including myself including Muslim religious scholars . . . admit this scripture is simply metaphor for outlining Islamic beliefs and I have no argument.

It's not about 'Arabic', it's about what the words actually are.

Sorry, but you don't understand the history of the religion (not the theology) as you mistake Western critical academic scholarship for 'apologetics'. I'm not Muslim, and have no need to support their theology, and am dealing with one specific point you made.

What is true, is that the hadith and Sirah were compiled 200+ years after the Quran, often to explain the parts of the Quran that they didn't understand.

You have quoted something that uses hadith/sirah to provide exegesis on the Quran, not the Quran itself. The original verse is "Glory be to Him, who carried His servant by night from the Holy Mosque to the Further Mosque the precincts of which We have blessed, that We might show him some of Our signs. He is the All-hearing, the All-seeing."

This is clearly very different from your quote, and the Surat title is tellingly "Bani Isra" (i.e. it's about the Israelites). I did provide an example of the possible origin of this idea also.

I can go into a lot more detail if you like, and provide plenty of academic scholarship to show I'm not just an 'apologist'. To start though, for some background to various academic views on the Quran see, for academic source support see

 

[Jabar]

Islamacist professors have told me that the Quran is riddled with contradictions arising from its stages of composition. But consider what it says about Jesus (Isa). True, the Quran confirms Jesus' virgin birth. Much of what it says derives from late 2nd to 5th century Christian infancy Gospels, which are universally discredited as legends. But the Quran also perpetuates an early discredited Gnostic heresy that Jesus was never crucified; it only appeared that way. In modern times this heresy reappers in occult books like "A Course in Miracles," and "Seth Speaks," a book of alleged channeled material.

In Matthew 12:38-40:

Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered him, saying, “Teacher, wwe wish to see a sign from you.” x“An evil and yadulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, aso will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

• Jonah was in the belly of the fish, praying to God. He was alive and God listened to his prayer. Jonah was alive because he prayed to God. These are miracles by which God did to Jonah to keep him alive.
  NOW, according to the Bible when Jesus Christ was taken down from the cross he was put into the grave. Jesus was obviously dead in the grave.
  
  If he is dead he fullfilled the prophecy. Jesus peace be upon him said that no sign shall be given to you except the sign of Jonah, for as Jonah was 3 days and 3 nights in belly of the fish. So, shall the son of man be 3 days and 3 nights in the heart of the earth. If JONAH WAS ALIVE, FOR JESUS CHRIST TO FULLFILL THE PROPHECY HE SHOULD ALSO HAVE BEEN ALIVE.

So then why do you say he died on the cross when that was not what actually happened?

YOU SEE. Are you trying to tell me then Jesus peace be upon him lied?
What you have been told by the Churches is false. There is much more i can give you as well.

 

[Augustus]

Much of what it says derives from late 2nd to 5th century Christian infancy Gospels, which are universally discredited as legends.

It reflects texts like the Infancy Gospel of Thomas and the Protoevangelium of James, but it is worth noting something beyond this.

There is no particular text that the Quran is 'based on', so it is worth looking at it from a different perspective. The texts that exist (Thomas, James, etc.) reflect the religious environment that existed at the time, as does the Quran. Instead of seeing the Quran as 'deriving' from these texts, it might be better to see them both as being products of a specific religious environment.

This is not necessarily to say the Quran is a 'Christian' text, just that it references/comments on the same environment.

But the Quran also perpetuates an early discredited Gnostic heresy that Jesus was never crucified; it only appeared that way.

These are the texts if you are interested:

The Apocalypse of Peter:

The Savior said to me, "He whom you saw on the tree, glad and laughing, this is the living Jesus. But this one into whose hands and feet they drive the nails is his fleshly part, which is the substitute being put to shame, the one who came into being in his likeness. But look at him and me."

Second Treatise of the Great Seth:

Yes, they saw me; they punished me. It was another, their father, who drank the gall and the vinegar; it was not I. They struck me with the reed; it was another, Simon, who bore the cross on his shoulder. I was another upon Whom they placed the crown of thorns. But I was rejoicing in the height over all the wealth of the archons and the offspring of their error, of their empty glory. And I was laughing at their ignorance.

And I subjected all their powers. For as I came downward, no one saw me. For I was altering my shapes, changing from form to form. And therefore, when I was at their gates, I assumed their likeness. For I passed them by quietly, and I was viewing the places, and I was not afraid nor ashamed, for I was undefiled. And I was speaking with them, mingling with them through those who are mine, and trampling on those who are harsh to them with zeal, and quenching the flame. And I was doing all these things because of my desire to accomplish what I desired by the will of the Father above.

These were Gnostic texts found in the Nag Hammadi Library and were from <5th C

Also the teachings of Basilides are referred to in Irenaeus' 'Against Heresies' and mention it <3rd C

He appeared, then, on earth as a man, to the nations of these powers, and wrought miracles. Wherefore he did not himself suffer death, but Simon, a certain man of Cyrene, being compelled, bore the cross in his stead; so that this latter being transfigured by him, that he might be thought to be Jesus, was crucified, through ignorance and error, while Jesus himself received the form of Simon, and, standing by, laughed at them. For since he was an incorporeal power, and the Nous (mind) of the unborn father, he transfigured himself as he pleased, and thus ascended to him who had sent him, deriding them, inasmuch as he could not be laid hold of, and was invisible to all.


Also perhaps of interest: The Muslim jesus: dead or alive

 

[Jabar]

It's not about 'Arabic', it's about what the words actually are.

Sorry, but you don't understand the history of the religion (not the theology) as you mistake Western critical academic scholarship for 'apologetics'. I'm not Muslim, and have no need to support their theology, and am dealing with one specific point you made.

What is true, is that the hadith and Sirah were compiled 200+ years after the Quran, often to explain the parts of the Quran that they didn't understand.

You have quoted something that uses hadith/sirah to provide exegesis on the Quran, not the Quran itself. The original verse is "Glory be to Him, who carried His servant by night from the Holy Mosque to the Further Mosque the precincts of which We have blessed, that We might show him some of Our signs. He is the All-hearing, the All-seeing."

This is clearly very different from your quote, and the Surat title is tellingly "Bani Isra" (i.e. it's about the Israelites). I did provide an example of the possible origin of this idea also.

I can go into a lot more detail if you like, and provide plenty of academic scholarship to show I'm not just an 'apologist'. To start though, for some background to various academic views on the Quran see, for academic source support see

You are the only Non-Muslim i have seen who has knowledge on the Qur'an.

 

[Jabar]

@Augustus @Berserk Check this out also:

http://guardianlv.com/2014/05/1500-year-old-bible-claims-jesus-was-never-crucified/


We believe Jesus was not crucified and was ascended to heaven as well.

 

[Subhankar Zac]

It never gives justification for murder, the context is different.

What you are saying is that, the defense is that it is in the another context...

BECAUSE IT IS!
Stop acting ignorant and pick pointing things from the Qur'an without understanding of it.

No it isn't.
Stop twisting the words of your own book, dodge questions from others and simply start a thread to troll others.
It justifies rape, murder and hate speech is half of the book.

 

[Subhankar Zac]

@Augustus @Berserk Check this out also:

http://guardianlv.com/2014/05/1500-year-old-bible-claims-jesus-was-never-crucified/


We believe Jesus was not crucified and was ascended to heaven as well.

We believe that Muhammad destroyed Pagan temples and had sex with a teenage girl.... Something that Hadith says too,
But u our defense will be
"Devil worship temple must be broken and sex with teens is halal".
This is the most annoying post here.

 

[Faronator]

These are simple misconception you are making...

You go on Anti-Islamic hating websites and blabber some nonsense misconceptions.

These are no errors at all but humans that make misconceptions.

Then for such a holy, perfect book it sure does have a lot of trouble expressing itself. I don't know why people are even wasting their time with you. You are just a kid trolling that will say everyone in the world is stupid for taking something literally the way it was written. Either quit working around clear as day text to make it fit your silly, outdated beliefs or stop making these threads for the fun of argument (not debate).

 

[Subhankar Zac]

How does one report a thread online for trolling?
I m New here so I really Do not know.

 

[Faronator]

No, i am saying there are none.

I did make my mind.

However, there is no error in the Qur'an.

These are misconceptions and signs of ignorance on your part.

Ignorance? Why don't you come on my podcast sometime and talk about the book you know so much about without Google readily at your disposal in front of my 600+ subscribers?

Let's see who knows what and who gets exposed then. Up for the challenge?

 

[Jabar]

We believe that Muhammad destroyed Pagan temples and had sex with a teenage girl.... Something that Hadith says too,
But u our defense will be
"Devil worship temple must be broken and sex with teens is halal".
This is the most annoying post here.

I do not have time for Islamic haters, who have no knowledge.

 

[Jabar]

Ignorance? Why don't you come on my podcast sometime and talk about the book you know so much about without Google readily at your disposal in front of my 600+ subscribers?

Let's see who knows what and who gets exposed then. Up for the challenge?

Haha, i am fine with that.


I will expose you in front of your viewers.

 

[Jabar]

How does one report a thread online for trolling?
I m New here so I really Do not know.

Trolling?

I am not trolling at all.

 

[Subhankar Zac]

I do not have time for Islamic haters, who have no knowledge.

Then don't start a troll challenging the validity of a book that was spoken by a extremist war mongering child molester.

 

[Subhankar Zac]

Trolling?

I am not trolling at all.

Of course you aren't.
Neither are ISIS killing innocent civilians nor do the winters in Antarctica causes snow

 

[EtuMalku]

It's not about 'Arabic', it's about what the words actually are.

Sorry, but you don't understand the history of the religion (not the theology) as you mistake Western critical academic scholarship for 'apologetics'. I'm not Muslim, and have no need to support their theology, and am dealing with one specific point you made.

What is true, is that the hadith and Sirah were compiled 200+ years after the Quran, often to explain the parts of the Quran that they didn't understand.

You have quoted something that uses hadith/sirah to provide exegesis on the Quran, not the Quran itself. The original verse is "Glory be to Him, who carried His servant by night from the Holy Mosque to the Further Mosque the precincts of which We have blessed, that We might show him some of Our signs. He is the All-hearing, the All-seeing."

This is clearly very different from your quote, and the Surat title is tellingly "Bani Isra" (i.e. it's about the Israelites). I did provide an example of the possible origin of this idea also.

I can go into a lot more detail if you like, and provide plenty of academic scholarship to show I'm not just an 'apologist'. To start though, for some background to various academic views on the Quran see, for academic source support see

Actually I have a very good grasp on pre-Islamic Arabia right into the Islamic takeover.
As with all the Abrahamic faiths, Islam is an invented religion, it is based on a rearrangement of earlier 'pagan' Arabian beliefs which intermingled with Christian, Judaic, Roman/Greco, Vedic, and Mesopotamian structures.
Allah can be traced to pre-Islamic beliefs in a lunar god, although Allah may have been treated as a Creator deity much like the Egyptian Khnum, He was not the most worshiped. The most worshiped were three goddesses, Al'Lat, which simply means 'goddess', Al'Uzza, literally 'the strong one' who is the full moon and the mother aspect, Al'Menat, the waning but wise goddess of fate, prophecy and divination. Mohammed supplanted Al'Lat with Allah, carrying over the Abrahamic tradition of destroying the Feminine aspect of spirituality.

You see it IS about Arabic language, which certainly is a slippery slope with an incredible amount of leeway to each word allowing them to be used to one's advantage.
Keep in mind that Islam encourages its followers to lie under certain circumstances in the form of Taqqiya and Kitman. The former is the direct manipulation of truth and the latter the lie of omission. They are allowed in circumstances, including but not limited to, gaining the trust of non believers in order to convert or to destroy them.

 

[Jabar]

Of course you aren't.
Neither are ISIS killing innocent civilians nor do the winters in Antarctica causes snow

Haha.

You have not read the Qur'an at all.

You are a Islamic hater, i do not like debating with people who have no knowledge on the Qur'an and start insulting the Prophet.