There are no mistakes in Quran

[YmirGF]

So, since you obviously think there are errors in the Quran, please state just one. All ears.

It really is hilarious to hear folks say this. Islam is a theological house of cards because of the aggressiveness and passion of its adherents belief. You simply cannot agree that there is a single error or contradiction in the Qur'an without bringing down that house of cards. And so we get these ridiculous explanations, like FireDragon's explanation of the use of "expanse" superimposing a nuanced meaning into the Qur'an, while at the same time, we have a less than clear idea of what Muhammad and his companions actually thought. From a statistical standpoint there are certainly more references in the Qur'an that lend support to the idea of a flat earth.

My first tidbit is more a bugaboo or quibble rather than an outright error, though it is amusing.

Goto Sura 4: 171 <source>.... Therein the reader is admonished not to say "Trinity" or "Three" and yet you cannot read/recite the passage without saying "Trinity" or "Three". Do more observant Muslims skip over the word entirely to remain faithful to the command?

This is certainly a minor example of an internal contradiction.

 

[YmirGF]

In followup to post 501, non-Muslims are faced with several obstacles in pointing our contradictions or errors in the Qur'an for the following reasons:

1. Which translation does one choose to quote from? The point is that any contradictions can be easily fobbed off on sloppy translations.
2. Related to the above is the simple fact that Arabic does not translate well into English, hence the profusion of translations in English alone.
3. Context is king. Quite often a given passage will sound outright weird, especially when it is not read with several passages before it and after that provide the context.
4. A very difficult aspect is understanding what the words meant at the time they were delivered by Muhammad. This effectively shuts out several of the "Scientific Miracles in the Qur'an" simply because it is extremely unlikely that human animals circa 600AD had the foggiest notion about how some passages are now being massaged - pretending that they understood the passages as the "Scientific Miracle" hypotheses lay out.
5. For non-Muslims especially, much of the Qur'an is mindbogglingly boring to go through. The hadiths are far, far worse, but the Qur'an is not a "light read" by any measure.
6. Much of the Qur'an relates to a people whom we have little in common with in historical terms or sociological terms.

Oh well, that's a start...

 

[Aquitaine]

Name me one biological mistake? One chemistry and one cosmology related.

Thanks.

This will probably be a waste of time, since no doubt I'll get the usual twisting of interpretation in order to deflect any and all criticism of the scripture.

Biology
Humans made from dust/clay.

Chemistry
Saltwater and Freshwater not mixing.

Cosmology
"Heavens" and Earth starting out as a joint entity, only to then be separated.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

It just proves a serious denial problem common among Muslims in general.

There is no denial.

Irony!

 

[firedragon]

It really is hilarious to hear folks say this. Islam is a theological house of cards because of the aggressiveness and passion of its adherents belief. You simply cannot agree that there is a single error or contradiction in the Qur'an without bringing down that house of cards. And so we get these ridiculous explanations, like FireDragon's explanation of the use of "expanse" superimposing a nuanced meaning into the Qur'an, while at the same time, we have a less than clear idea of what Muhammad and his companions actually thought. From a statistical standpoint there are certainly more references in the Qur'an that lend support to the idea of a flat earth.

My first tidbit is more a bugaboo or quibble rather than an outright error, though it is amusing.

Goto Sura 4: 171 <source>.... Therein the reader is admonished not to say "Trinity" or "Three" and yet you cannot read/recite the passage without saying "Trinity" or "Three". Do more observant Muslims skip over the word entirely to remain faithful to the command?

This is certainly a minor example of an internal contradiction.

OMG. Thats probably the most bogus and absurd claim I have come across from someone I was expecting something much better.

Peace bro.

 

[YmirGF]

OMG. Thats probably the most bogus and absurd claim I have come across from someone I was expecting something much better.

Peace bro.

So, I can expect such responses to anything else I can be bothered looking into? Like, be honest, you are never going to agree that such and such is a contradiction or error. So, what is the point?

 

[firedragon]

So, I can expect such responses to anything else I can be bothered looking into? Like, be honest, you are never going to agree that such and such is a contradiction or error. So, what is the point?

A word in Arabic will have sevaral meanings, like run in English. But you cant say 'Run the programme' connoting physical run. Sameway, Lamoosioon can mean expand, it does. Though you simply dont wanna accept it.

Maybe you are right brother. Maybe I am bias. Maybe we are all bias. The same way you ask me to be honest bro, I can ask you the same. Think about it. Be honest, you will never take any of my explanations, because you are convinced otherwise, even though you could have been mislead, a chance.

But sincerely, I expected better from you.

Think of this, when you say that Muslims cant recite the verse because everytime you do you say three. Salasa (Thalatha).

Why do I have to recite the verse? In the kindergarten I said 1, 2, 3 which makes me a sinner since I was 2 years old maybe.

In your heart you know what it means brother.

 

[Kirran]

I doubt it means that you literally can't say the word 'Three'. It seems that it meant that you couldn't say that there were Three, i.e. you couldn't assert that the Trinitarian doctrine was true.

 

[firedragon]

In followup to post 501, non-Muslims are faced with several obstacles in pointing our contradictions or errors in the Qur'an for the following reasons:

1. Which translation does one choose to quote from? The point is that any contradictions can be easily fobbed off on sloppy translations.
2. Related to the above is the simple fact that Arabic does not translate well into English, hence the profusion of translations in English alone.
3. Context is king. Quite often a given passage will sound outright weird, especially when it is not read with several passages before it and after that provide the context.
4. A very difficult aspect is understanding what the words meant at the time they were delivered by Muhammad. This effectively shuts out several of the "Scientific Miracles in the Qur'an" simply because it is extremely unlikely that human animals circa 600AD had the foggiest notion about how some passages are now being massaged - pretending that they understood the passages as the "Scientific Miracle" hypotheses lay out.
5. For non-Muslims especially, much of the Qur'an is mindbogglingly boring to go through. The hadiths are far, far worse, but the Qur'an is not a "light read" by any measure.
6. Much of the Qur'an relates to a people whom we have little in common with in historical terms or sociological terms.

Oh well, that's a start...

I opted to respond to this because it should.

1. What do you mean which translation? Try to understand that you have got it wrong. Give it a try.
You live in the 21st century. With what you understand of this earth now, when you read the Quran in Arabic, what do you understand? That is what matters.
2. S.A.A
3. Of course. I agree. Added to that is the context of the Quran.
4. The Quran is in Classical Arabic, What is needed is to know the language of the time. If you think the meaning of a word has changed over time simply because it differ in an English translation, thats the wrong way to look at it. Try and put yourself into a non dogmatic, non bias, arab speaking person in the 21st century who knows classical arabic.
5. I agree with that.
6. I respectfully disagree and say that the Quran relates to you and me.

Peace.

 

[firedragon]

I doubt it means that you literally can't say the word 'Three'. It seems that it meant that you couldn't say that there were Three, i.e. you couldn't assert that the Trinitarian doctrine was true.

Of course.

 

[Aquitaine]

A word in Arabic will have sevaral meanings, like run in English

Which further emphasizes the folly in trying to literally interpret the Quran as divine scripture: if its message can be so easily misinterpreted then why bother?

 

[firedragon]

Which further emphasizes the folly in trying to literally interpret the Quran as divine scripture: if its message can be so easily misinterpreted then why bother?

If you cannot distinguish between running a programme and running in the street, thats a problem in comprehension.

 

[Aquitaine]

If you cannot distinguish between running a programme and running in the street, thats a problem in comprehension.

Right, because so far literalist scriptural interpretation has worked just so well for you guys. . .

 

[firedragon]

Right, because so far literalist scriptural interpretation has worked just so well for you guys. . .

Brother these kind of fleeting comments are below your intellectual level. Why not speak with evidence and then look at proof and analyse rather than doing this?

 

[Aquitaine]

Brother these kind of fleeting comments are below your intellectual level. Why not speak with evidence and then look at proof and analyse rather than doing this?

Okay. My evidence is the endless history of arguments, splits and conflicts of scriptural literalists all fighting over who has the "correct" interpretation.

 

[firedragon]

Okay. My evidence is the endless history of arguments, splits and conflicts of scriptural literalists all fighting over who has the "correct" interpretation.

Thats not 'your' evidence.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Thats not 'your' evidence.

It's the evidence that supports his claim. Stop obfuscating.

 

[Sapiens]

Here's a laundry list of mistakes: https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Scientific_Errors_in_the_Quran

 

[firedragon]

It's the evidence that supports his claim. Stop obfuscating.

Thats not evidence. Thats evidence for himself. What I would deem evidence is when you take scriptural criticism seriously and build a case to support your claim.

Just saying that your people had disputes in a matter is not.

I do mean it with all due respect.

Cheers.

 

[firedragon]

Here's a laundry list of mistakes: https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Scientific_Errors_in_the_Quran

Have you gone through them and scrutinised them? Quote one, and give your reasons for that one error to be 100% true.

Most here are not the average surfers, thus Im pretty sure weve seen this link.

Cheers.