• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

There are no mistakes in Quran

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
Yes, I realise I am quoting myself here, but to repeat : has anyone raised or addressed the manner in which the Quran references the Christian Trinity?

Take three...has anyone raised or addressed the manner in which the Trinity is addressed in the Quran?
I realise I'm not directly tagging anyone here, but I'm posting in a thread asking for challenges to the perfection of the Quran. Is it too much to hope for some sort of acknowledgement that I've actually posted, at the very least?

If I sound frustrated, I am. This isn't the first time this sort of thing has happened.
 

YmirGF

Bodhisattva in Recovery
Take three...has anyone raised or addressed the manner in which the Trinity is addressed in the Quran?
I realise I'm not directly tagging anyone here, but I'm posting in a thread asking for challenges to the perfection of the Quran. Is it too much to hope for some sort of acknowledgement that I've actually posted, at the very least?

If I sound frustrated, I am. This isn't the first time this sort of thing has happened.
@lewisnotmiller

The Qur'an is somewhat hissy about the notion of the Trinity and can only be read as being anti-Trinitarian. Allah is without partners, other than Muhammad whom he needed to distribute the Qur'an, but it is designed to drop Jesus down a few pegs from the (Trinitarian) Christian view and put him on near equal footing with Muhammad. The result raises Muhammad's authority while lowering the authority of the Christians. How is that for respectful?
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
I guess you do not understand how verbs and nouns work. A verb's definition changes according the noun it is linked to. So the verb "hitting" or "beat" becomes modified by the noun "road". In this case the object is not a road thus the modification is no longer applicable. In the verse' case the noun is the wife not a road. All you are doing is shift the noun from one context to another, nothing more. This is an out of context fallacy. Try again

Congratulation on your inability to understand basic grammar.


Alright, could you tell me the right way to translate this into classical Arabic of the Quran.

As for those women from whom you fear disloyalty, then you shall advise them, abandon them in the bedchamber, and separate them;

Yet it is in Lane's Lexicon as beating when linked to a person. As does the lexicon for the Quran. As I said it is in both lexicons. Seems like you do not understand grammar combined with a refusal to use lexicons for the obvious reason it shows you are wrong.

With your understanding of grammar, please explain all these verses.

Travel, to get out 3:156; 4:101; 38:44; 73:20; 2:273
Strike 2:60,73; 7:160; 8:12; 20:77; 24:31; 26:63; 37:93; 47:4
Beat (8:50), to beat or regret 47:27
Set up 43:58; 57:13
Give 14:24,45; 16:75,76,112; 18:32,45; 24:35; 30:28,58; 36:78; 39:27,29; 43:17; 59:21; 66:10,11
Take away, ignore (43:5),
Condemn 2:61
Seal, draw over 18:11
Cover 24:31
Explain 13:17

Same Verb.

When it comes to a drum, its beat. Beat the drum. So according to your view, when it comes to a wife, it should be beat as in hit her?

Thats the context of a silly hadith, not the context of the Quran. You have to use the Quranic context, and logic. It is only logical to separate your wife from you if she is disloyal, not hit her. When the Quran says that God has put tranquility between the woman and the man, and the whole Quranic context of the appearances of Yadrib, Darabtum, Idhribuhunna etc, you cannot translate it as hit her. Impossible, unless you are bias.

Edward Lane - Beat (Drum), Gate, Place of entrance, narrow pass in mountains, etc. Daraba is strike, thats a pushing away, not necessarily hit, unless its a physical fight and you darabtum.

Yet it is in Lane's Lexicon as beating when linked to a person. As does the lexicon for the Quran.

1. Show me where he says "beating when linked to a person"
2. and how you rationalise the context of the Quranic verse.
3. What do you mean two lexicons and both lexicons refute me. Edward Lane + Lexicon for the Quran? What is a lexicon for the Quran? Ghulam? What do you mean Lexicon for the Quran? Show me please, where it refutes me.

Cheers.
 

Corthos

Great Old One
Check again, I want to know which translation says "Sperm".

Actually, this is something I would like some clarification on as well. This is what the Quran states according to the translation used on http://quran.com/86/5-7

So let man observe from what he was created.

He was created from a fluid, ejected,

Emerging from between the backbone and the ribs.

Here we have human beings being created from a liquid ejected specifically from the abdomen. I can only think of one liquid that would meet this qualification.... If it isn't semen, then what else could it be?
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Actually, this is something I would like some clarification on as well. This is what the Quran states according to the translation used on http://quran.com/86/5-7

So let man observe from what he was created.

He was created from a fluid, ejected,

Emerging from between the backbone and the ribs.

Here we have human beings being created from a liquid ejected specifically from the abdomen. I can only think of one liquid that would meet this qualification.... If it isn't semen, then what else could it be?

Thats a good point brother and valid. But I would like to know what translation he copied it from. Thats only one of the points he cited, but think of it as out of curiosity I would like to know.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
Would you settle for 52 translations? I know that's not much.... :)

http://islamawakened.com/quran/86/7/

Keep in mind
Alright, could you tell me the right way to translate this into classical Arabic of the Quran.

As for those women from whom you fear disloyalty, then you shall advise them, abandon them in the bedchamber, and separate them;

Irrelevent



With your understanding of grammar, please explain all these verses.

Travel, to get out 3:156; 4:101; 38:44; 73:20; 2:273
Strike 2:60,73; 7:160; 8:12; 20:77; 24:31; 26:63; 37:93; 47:4
Beat (8:50), to beat or regret 47:27
Set up 43:58; 57:13
Give 14:24,45; 16:75,76,112; 18:32,45; 24:35; 30:28,58; 36:78; 39:27,29; 43:17; 59:21; 66:10,11
Take away, ignore (43:5),
Condemn 2:61
Seal, draw over 18:11
Cover 24:31
Explain 13:17

The nouns linked to the verbs which I already told you.

Same Verb.

And different nouns....

When it comes to a drum, its beat. Beat the drum. So according to your view, when it comes to a wife, it should be beat as in hit her?

Different nouns again.

Thats the context of a silly hadith, not the context of the Quran. You have to use the Quranic context, and logic. It is only logical to separate your wife from you if she is disloyal, not hit her. When the Quran says that God has put tranquility between the woman and the man, and the whole Quranic context of the appearances of Yadrib, Darabtum, Idhribuhunna etc, you cannot translate it as hit her. Impossible, unless you are bias.

Irrelevant. I am using the context of the verse not some other context with another noun. Speak of bias when you are not the one ignoring multiple translations and lexicons

Edward Lane - Beat (Drum), Gate, Place of entrance, narrow pass in mountains, etc. Daraba is strike, thats a pushing away, not necessarily hit, unless its a physical fight and you darabtum.

Irrelevent. Read pages 1777-78 Book 1 in Lane's Lexicon. Daraba still means strike not pushing away. The Corpus shows this as well since it is based on Lane's Lexicon although not all the translations are. However each one agrees with me not you





1. Show me where he says "beating when linked to a person"

See above

2. and how you rationalise the context of the Quranic verse.

The Lexicon of both Lane and the Corpus. The increasing of severity of the actions. The Tafsir showing that beating is not questioned but the severity of the violence is.

3. What do you mean two lexicons and both lexicons refute me. Edward Lane + Lexicon for the Quran? What is a lexicon for the Quran? Ghulam? What do you mean Lexicon for the Quran? Show me please, where it refutes me.

See above
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Irrelevent

It is.

Since you say that Daraba cannot mean separate, I would like you tell me how to say it in Classical Arabic. Then, you would understand.

Alright, could you tell me the right way to translate this into classical Arabic of the Quran.

As for those women from whom you fear disloyalty, then you shall advise them, abandon them in the bedchamber, and separate them;

You tell me that I dont know basic grammar, I asked you this question so that you can explain in basic grammar how to write this in English.

Before you tell me I dont know basic grammar, mate, accept that you dont know Jack and you are only pretending.

And different nouns....

Of course different nouns.

What you have to do is explain how it differs.

With your understanding of grammar, please explain all these verses.

Travel, to get out 3:156; 4:101; 38:44; 73:20; 2:273
Strike 2:60,73; 7:160; 8:12; 20:77; 24:31; 26:63; 37:93; 47:4
Beat (8:50), to beat or regret 47:27
Set up 43:58; 57:13
Give 14:24,45; 16:75,76,112; 18:32,45; 24:35; 30:28,58; 36:78; 39:27,29; 43:17; 59:21; 66:10,11
Take away, ignore (43:5),
Condemn 2:61
Seal, draw over 18:11
Cover 24:31
Explain 13:17

Same Verb.
Okay, also different nouns.

Different nouns again.

Of course, thats why I said this (The same sentence you quoted)
"When it comes to a drum, its beat. Beat the drum. So according to your view, when it comes to a wife, it should be beat as in hit her?"

Irrelevent. Read pages 1777-78 Book 1 in Lane's Lexicon. Daraba still means strike not pushing away. The Corpus shows this as well since it is based on Lane's Lexicon although not all the translations are. However each one agrees with me not you

Read again and show me where it says "it is in Lane's Lexicon as beating when linked to a person". Back up your statement please mate.

You cannot, because you cant. When you lie, you cant prove them.

Irrelevent. Read pages 1777-78 Book 1 in Lane's Lexicon. Daraba still means strike not pushing away. The Corpus shows this as well since it is based on Lane's Lexicon although not all the translations are. However each one agrees with me not you

Then what does Daramthum mean?

Corpus Quran is a resource, its not "Lexicon for the Quran". Corpus says Strike, thats the literal rendition. But its not like the English word strike as in hit. It is setting up a barrier between you and a person, thats the correct rendition. You cannot put one word to it but if you have to, separate is the correct word.

If you want to see a Lexicon of Quranic Arabic, read Maalik Ghulam Farid. Its an easy one to read.

You cant understand it because you dont know Jack about Arabic though you just pose as if you do, and you speak so insolently.

Thats alright mate.

The Lexicon of both Lane and the Corpus. The increasing of severity of the actions. The Tafsir showing that beating is not questioned but the severity of the violence is.

Thanks for teaching me that. I really didnt know that. I am a Muslim only for one day and never heard that explanation. Pfft, cmon mate. These are elementary stuff.

Due to this only some have included within brackets in some of the translations things like 'lightly' etc and the explanation would be based on a hadith about beating with a Misfaq. If you understand fan al dhaariyathu I can explain, but you dont have a clue, though you pretend to. There is no gain in that. None.

For one to say "Its done" is to stop all scholarly work in this world. SImply and utterly absurd and childish.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
The source I'm using for all of them is http://quran.com.
Granted that source doens't use the word "sperm", but it is implied that it is referring to it.

Brother, if no translation says Sperm why would you? I understand that you must have picked these things from some site. I know that many people (I cant say that you did but I assume.) go to google and search for "Mistakes in Quran" or something equivalent to that. Then they with out even analysing it at all just use it against a Muslim. Why would you do that?

Alright, you say the source is quran.com? It cannot be, because they dont translate it as sperm.

  1. Where did you pick it up from?
  2. Why do you think its a mistake?
Peace.
 

Aquitaine

Well-Known Member
Brother, if no translation says Sperm why would you? I understand that you must have picked these things from some site. I know that many people (I cant say that you did but I assume.) go to google and search for "Mistakes in Quran" or something equivalent to that. Then they with out even analysing it at all just use it against a Muslim. Why would you do that?

Alright, you say the source is quran.com? It cannot be, because they dont translate it as sperm.

  1. Where did you pick it up from?
  2. Why do you think its a mistake?
Peace.
I did say it didn't specifically say "sperm", but it seems to be blatantly implying that it's sperm.
Otherwise what is this gushing ejected fluid coming from that region which creates us? Be realistic now, don't play dumb in order to uphold the ridiculous notion that the Quran is 100% error-free.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
I did say it didn't specifically say "sperm", but it seems to be blatantly implying that it's sperm.
Otherwise what is this gushing ejected fluid coming from that region which creates us? Be realistic now, don't play dumb in order to uphold the ridiculous notion that the Quran is 100% error-free.

So thats your explanation?

Brother, ridiculous notions or not, where did you get the notion that its sperm?

For you to point out a mistake, it has to be a contradiction between something truthful and a blatant lie. Now what is the mistake? Why dont you explain it if you know for sure that there is one?

I am not playing dumb, but why dont you agree that you really dont know if its a mistake or not. You just picked it up from some site. Even then its okay as long as you are honest enough to say that you have not made any analysis, you just found it and would like an explanation.

Why do you think that verse says sperm? You must explain your idea brother at least to know that you have put some thought into it, otherwise there is no point.
 

Corthos

Great Old One
So thats your explanation?

Brother, ridiculous notions or not, where did you get the notion that its sperm?

For you to point out a mistake, it has to be a contradiction between something truthful and a blatant lie. Now what is the mistake? Why dont you explain it if you know for sure that there is one?

I am not playing dumb, but why dont you agree that you really dont know if its a mistake or not. You just picked it up from some site. Even then its okay as long as you are honest enough to say that you have not made any analysis, you just found it and would like an explanation.

Why do you think that verse says sperm? You must explain your idea brother at least to know that you have put some thought into it, otherwise there is no point.

It seems you are arguing semantics over something very straight forward... =/

Maybe you'd like to come back to my post earlier and explain things from your point of view? If what is described in the Quran isn't semen, then I'd like for you to tell me your thoughts. =)
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
It seems you are arguing semantics over something very straight forward... =/

Maybe you'd like to come back to my post earlier and explain things from your point of view? If what is described in the Quran isn't semen, then I'd like for you to tell me your thoughts. =)

Then thats a valid question, but this thread is about discussing mistakes. If we are to discuss a mistake, you have to be thorough with it. If you are not, you dont know what that verse says or means, how could you point it as a mistake? It only shows that you are just fishing on the internet shallowly expecting only to slander by simply repeating what someone said like a parrot. You have some intellect, why not be thorough with your point which is supposed to be a mistake in the book? If not, you can ask a clarification. Thats a whole different matter.
 

Corthos

Great Old One
Then thats a valid question, but this thread is about discussing mistakes. If we are to discuss a mistake, you have to be thorough with it. If you are not, you dont know what that verse says or means, how could you point it as a mistake? It only shows that you are just fishing on the internet shallowly expecting only to slander by simply repeating what someone said like a parrot. You have some intellect, why not be thorough with your point which is supposed to be a mistake in the book? If not, you can ask a clarification. Thats a whole different matter.

?...

I don't know where you came up with the idea that I'm "just fishing on the internet shallowly expecting only to slander by simply repeating what someone said like a parrot." What I am fishing for is understanding, which is why I was asking you your thoughts.

Perhaps you are right in saying this thread isn't the right place for such a question, so I will make a new thread so I can get some direct clarification on the subject.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
?...

I don't know where you came up with the idea that I'm "just fishing on the internet shallowly expecting only to slander by simply repeating what someone said like a parrot." What I am fishing for is understanding, which is why I was asking you your thoughts.

Perhaps you are right in saying this thread isn't the right place for such a question, so I will make a new thread so I can get some direct clarification on the subject.

Apologies are mine if I did misunderstand you, but you are most welcome.
 
Top