There are no mistakes in Quran

[lewisnotmiller]

@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?

Awww...no offence, but I was hoping for an honest-to-goodness Muslim member to respond. However, at this point I'll take what I can get.

My point wasn't so much around the Quran being non-Trinitarian, but more so the way in which the Trinity is alluded to.
Consider (my emphasis);

The Messiah, son of Mary, was not but a messenger; [other] messengers have passed on before him. And his mother was a supporter of truth. They both used to eat food. Look how We make clear to them the signs; then look how they are deluded.
Source : http://quran.com/5/75

And [beware the Day] when Allah will say, "O Jesus, Son of Mary, did you say to the people, 'Take me and my mother as deities besides Allah ?'" He will say, "Exalted are You! It was not for me to say that to which I have no right. If I had said it, You would have known it. You know what is within myself, and I do not know what is within Yourself. Indeed, it is You who is Knower of the unseen.
Source : http://quran.com/5/116

Interested in your opinion, or any others. Whilst I have zero belief in the Trinity, this appears a misrepresentation of Christian beliefs.

 

[YmirGF]

Awww...no offence, but I was hoping for an honest-to-goodness Muslim member to respond. However, at this point I'll take what I can get.

My point wasn't so much around the Quran being non-Trinitarian, but more so the way in which the Trinity is alluded to.
Consider (my emphasis);





Interested in your opinion, or any others. Whilst I have zero belief in the Trinity, this appears a misrepresentation of Christian beliefs.

I answered more to just get the ball rolling, as it didn't appear any Muslims were particularly interested in your question. You do make an interesting point. It is certainly a view that I've never heard mentioned by Trinitarian Christians. It's almost a strawman. Allah argues strawmen? Jeeez .... (no pun intended)...

That's almost as rich as Muhammad riding up to paradise for a chinwag with Allah wherein he haggled over prayer times. Why would you even think to haggle with an all-knowing being? Further, one would expect for said being to know the mind of the questioner enough to arrive at the suitable answer right off the bat... but no, they haggled over it.

 

[firedragon]

Awww...no offence, but I was hoping for an honest-to-goodness Muslim member to respond. However, at this point I'll take what I can get.

My point wasn't so much around the Quran being non-Trinitarian, but more so the way in which the Trinity is alluded to.
Consider (my emphasis);

Interested in your opinion, or any others. Whilst I have zero belief in the Trinity, this appears a misrepresentation of Christian beliefs.

I answered more to just get the ball rolling, as it didn't appear any Muslims were particularly interested in your question. You do make an interesting point. It is certainly a view that I've never heard mentioned by Trinitarian Christians. It's almost a strawman. Allah argues strawmen? Jeeez .... (no pun intended)...

That's almost as rich as Muhammad riding up to paradise for a chinwag with Allah wherein he haggled over prayer times. Why would you even think to haggle with an all-knowing being? Further, one would expect for said being to know the mind of the questioner enough to arrive at the suitable answer right off the bat... but no, they haggled over it.

Pssst. Dont always listen to YmirGF. Because sometimes he could be right.

YmirGF, I am still wondering why ever try to type your Avatar name (Hope thats what its called). Not an easy task.

1. I do not understand your strawman thing, but I would like to hear it if you have time.
2. About the chinwag and haggle part, murder me but I completely agree.

lewisnotmiller

I wanna go through your post once more to understand your point, but I need to have some tea first.

Cheers.

 

[firedragon]

Awww...no offence, but I was hoping for an honest-to-goodness Muslim member to respond. However, at this point I'll take what I can get.

My point wasn't so much around the Quran being non-Trinitarian, but more so the way in which the Trinity is alluded to.
Consider (my emphasis);





Interested in your opinion, or any others. Whilst I have zero belief in the Trinity, this appears a misrepresentation of Christian beliefs.

I wonder if you are making an assessment that Muslims think Mary is part of the trinity. I have spent time on some Christian profs who assess that way.

Anyway, there are several ways to look at the trinity and the Quranic injunction. I wonder though if that will answer your query.

1. Wholly from a historians point of view, the Quran could have simply renarrated certain Christian stories about Jesus, Mary etc and changed the story to suit the authors agenda. But the Trinity is not clearly explained in the bible, in that case, the prophet Muhammed has to go on hearsay. Thats one view.
2. From a Muslims point of view, Quran clarifies the status of Jesus. He is not God, He is not the begotten son of God, Mary is not a deity, neither is Jesus. The Quranic argument is that there is one deity (Ilah) who is called "The Deity" (Al-Ilah=Allah). He is not begotten nor does he beget.

If you have an issue with Jesus and Mary eating food, thats to clarify that they are no deities. They eat, Deities or divine, Godly things dont eat. And if you assess that the Quran is thinking that the trinity is comprised of God, Jesus and Mary, thats an argument Rev. W. St. Clair Tisdall brought out some time ago. But that is with the understanding that Lailaha Illallah means there is no God but Allah. It actually means as I already said above that there is no deity but the deity. We are not supposed to take anything other other than THE GOD as deity.

This is not relevant to the topic. You should open up a new thread.

Peace to you.

 

[Aquitaine]

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.

If you're going to play it like that then fair enough, I will ask you as a muslim: what fluid does that verse talk about?

 

[Augustus]

Awww...no offence, but I was hoping for an honest-to-goodness Muslim member to respond. However, at this point I'll take what I can get.

My point wasn't so much around the Quran being non-Trinitarian, but more so the way in which the Trinity is alluded to.
Consider (my emphasis);

Interested in your opinion, or any others. Whilst I have zero belief in the Trinity, this appears a misrepresentation of Christian beliefs.

There is argument A - the Quran was referring to a specific sect. Seeing as the Christianity in the Quran sometimes relates to non-canonical Gnostic texts:

The Gospel of the Egyptians sets forth a trinity of the Father, the Mother, and the Son. It ascribes the creation of the world to the foolish Sakla, who is a caricature of the Old Testament Jehovah. The Great Invisible Spirit sends Seth to save his seed. To accomplish his mission Seth puts on the living Jesus as a garment and brings "baptism" as a rite for re birth. Sodom and Gomorrah are honored as holy cities. (EM Yamauchi - the Nag Hammadi Library)

Another potential option is:

The Kollyridians, as Epiphanius describes them, were a group of women first in Thrace and Scythia and then in Arabia who observed a distinctive
and early form of Marian veneration and allowed women to serve as priests, both practices that he vigorously condemns. While Epiphanius’s
rejection of women priests is stridently clear from his account, the precise nature of the Kollyridians’ alleged ritual practices is somewhat less obvious,
and their admittedly unusual veneration of the Virgin has frequently been taken for the worship of Mary as some sort of goddess.
(Epiphanius of Salamis, the Kollyridians, and the Early Dormition Narratives: The Cult of the Virgin in the Fourth Century - S Shoemaker)

Many people have argued that there were sects who actively considered Mary a goddess. As such the Quran could be referring to such people.

There is also argument B (which I agree with) - There were Christian polemics against excessive veneration of the saints in general, and Mary in specific as such actions were fairly widespread. These people didn't literally see Mary as a god, but their excessive veneration was viewed by others as being comparable to this. That such people had crossed the boundaries of acceptable religious behaviour by implicitly deifying Mary (and other saints). The Quran is therefore in this tradition of religious criticism.

The Quran's focus on strict monotheism makes this interpretation much more likely.

The most convincing evidence against this as an 'error' though is the Quran's content. I often read people saying the Quran displays a primitive knowledge of Christianity as Muhammed copied some basic stuff and made mistakes with it.

This is based around the orthodox Islamic idea that the initial audience of the Quran were pagans, combined with a polemical view that Muhammed was a fraud who tricked these backward Arabs because they didn't know any better.

If you read the Quran though, it actually displays a good command of religious issues, and references ideas from a wide range of Judaeo-Christian sources. It is anything but a primitive copy of a basic Christianity. Moreover, if you read the Quran with an open mind, it is very clear that the audience is expected to be familiar with the Christian narratives and theological controversies. Unless you knew the Biblical narratives many passages would make no sense. It alludes to stories, it doesn't repeat them or narrate them.

To consider it an 'error' requires one to believe that the Quran is both theologically sophisticated and ignorant of some of the most basic aspects of Christian teachings. There's a much better argument that the Quran reflects a Christian environment and the 'polytheists' were actually erring Christians and Jews (the distinction between the 2 groups not always being perfectly clear like it is today).

 

[firedragon]

Alright. I will take this sperm problematic verse. Please you must also understand that always there are many of us here who just post stuff without any kind of analysis. Only when they have been countered they go look stuff up and return with the most common and widespread exegesis done by not language experts and scholars but simply, hate sites.

First thing about this verse is that it does not say Sperm. I so far have not come across a single translation of the Quran that says sperm, maybe there are and if you can find one, please tell me. I am a Muslim and it is my life's work to study them, and I do. I believe only with all humility that I have gone through (to say the least) through every translation I could find and their logic. There are some interpretations that are shunned by the so called "main stream" Islamic scholars even if they are also painstakingly done by highly qualified scholars, maybe more qualified in language than those self appointed Mullahs and Maulas. Also, this happens vise versa.

Anyways, let me not get carried away.

There has been many many views on this verse.
86:6 He was created from a water/liquid that spurts forth.

Mimmaain (Min Maain) means from a water or liquid. It does not mean sperm which I seriously don't know the origin of. Where in the world did that come from? That's why I was asking repeatedly. Nevertheless, Sperm is Nutfa.

36:77 Has the human being not seen that We have created him from a seed/sperm

The English word is derived (I am no English scholar) from the Greek word Sperma which is used in the bible to refer to Gods seed as well.
"Those who are born of God will not continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in them" in the first epistle of John (TNIV).

A liquid ejected coming from between the backbone/spine (Sulbi) and the ribs/loins (Taraib).

Sperm is made in the testes. Semen is a mixture. (news-medical.net)

The semen travels through the ejaculatory ducts and mixes with fluids from the seminal vesicles, the prostrate, and the bulbourethral glands.

The seminal vesicles produce a viscous, fructose-rich fluid forming around 65-70% of the semen base.

The white color of the semen is due to secretion from the prostate glands containing enzymes, citric acid, lipids, and acid phosphatase. This forms around 25-30% of the semen base.

At each ejaculation around 200-500 million sperms are released by the testes. This forms about 2-5% of the semen composition.

Apart from these, the bulbourethral glands produce a clear secretion. This helps in mobility of the sperm cells in the vagina and cervix. The glands’ secretion contribute less than 1% to the overall semen composition.

The semen comprises of:

• fructose
• ascorbic acid
• zinc
• cholesterol
• protein
• calcium
• chlorine
• blood group antigens
• citric acid
• DNA
• Magnesium
• vitamin B12
• phosphorus
• sodium
• potassium
• uric acid
• lactic acid
• nitrogen
• other nutrients

Semen per ejaculation
Ejaculation is a complex process and the compositions of the final semen come together in the posterior urethra and only become mixed after ejaculation is complete.

The volume of semen released per ejaculate varies. Approximately an average around 3.4 milliliters is ejaculated at one time. It can be as high as 4.99 milliliters or as low as 2.3 milliliters.

If there is a prolonged gap between ejaculations, the number of sperm in the semen increases but there is no overall increase in the semen.

Reviewed by April Cashin-Garbutt, BA Hons (Cantab)

Sources

1. http://www.cysonline.org/temp/ChronYoungSci1330-7548606_205806.pdf
2. http://www.urologyhealth.org/content/moreinfo/pe.pdf
3. http://www.infertilityeducation.org/pdf/Semen Analysis.pdf
4. ebooks.cambridge.org/chapter.jsf

The analysis is this.

Sperm is only a small part of the Semen. Sperm is only 2-5% of the Semen, and bubourethral glands produce less than 1%, the rest is manufactured in the Seminal Vesicle (65–75%) and Prostate (25–30%).

This is the theory of the liquid that the Quran is speaking of. Not the sperm (Nutfa).
The word used here for ejected is Dhafikin, used also for vasectomy.

If you search for images of any of the above you will see where are.

 

[Shad]

It is.

No it isn't. It a red herring and out of context as the nouns are different. I already pointed this out before

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.

Strawman. I didn't say that. I said in context to a person it has a meaning of physical violence as per Lane's Lexicon

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

First you need to actually use a lexicon. The other option is to actually acknowledge expert's in Arabic have been translating it as strike (violence) for centuries. Alas you can not due to an ideology. More so you are claiming all experts are wrong but you are right but have provided zero sources to show this.

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

As per above you again ignore lexicons and experts.

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.

If you do not understand how a verb changes meaning due to the associated noun then my statement is fact. I already explained it multiple times. I am not going to repeat myself due to your inability or refusal to understand this.

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

I know enough to use lexicons and to use experts none of which you have done yet.

Of course different nouns.

So now you understand the point you just asked about above?

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

Different nouns change the meaning of the verb. Already told you this multiple times

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?"

Different nouns and out of context fallacy

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.

Read the pages. More than half the examples are violence and each case of violence is against a human.

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

Yet I provided a source showing this to be true. So no lie, you just didn't bother to read the source then made a strawman based on your denial

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.

It actually is as it uses Lane's Lexicon and contains morphology. Alas you didn't check the source then made an error which you just repeated here.

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

Calling your bluff. Do take note that chaste is still violence. Do note that your separate claim is not in the text. So do you have another source you never bothered to read before citing it? You also had no issues with Lane's Lexicon until it support an opposing view more than your own

https://archive.org/stream/TafseerEngCommQuranLong/Tafseer Eng_Comm_Quran Long#page/n517/mode/2up

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

Hilarious since you present a source that you put forward as an expert yet they disagree with you and agree with me. I may not know Arabic but at least I can read my sources. Let's see you demonstrate that...

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.

Apparatently it is above elementary school since experts agree with my view not your own. The only elementary stuff is the flawed methods you have attempted to use.

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.

Which is merely translator commentary which still holds to the violence definition. Again you acknowledge a view you have opposed. The hadith only show that some people had issues with violence and attempted to tone it down which is just a sense of morality conflicting with an ideology. Now have you read other hadith in which a wife complained about her husbands abuse and Mo in the end told her to accept it and it was her fault.

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.

You seem to think I should accept your word when you have demonstrated your own sources do not support your view. You have yet to convince me why I should take anything you have to say other than as a baseless claim backed by zero sources.

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

I didn't say that. However it seems like your position is to dismiss experts that for centuries support my view based only on your word and in the face of modern morals that make Islam look backwards.

Your argument seems to coming to a conclusion. I must know Arabic to question the Quran. However this raises an issue of if I need to know Arabic to question it why is there no standard in which converts must learn Arabic before actually converting. English translations are good enough for the convert but not good enough for the critic. Translations which you reject are good enough for the convert but not good enough for the critic.

 

[Corthos]

Alright. I will take this sperm problematic verse. Please you must also understand that always there are many of us here who just post stuff without any kind of analysis. Only when they have been countered they go look stuff up and return with the most common and widespread exegesis done by not language experts and scholars but simply, hate sites.

First thing about this verse is that it does not say Sperm. I so far have not come across a single translation of the Quran that says sperm, maybe there are and if you can find one, please tell me. I am a Muslim and it is my life's work to study them, and I do. I believe only with all humility that I have gone through (to say the least) through every translation I could find and their logic. There are some interpretations that are shunned by the so called "main stream" Islamic scholars even if they are also painstakingly done by highly qualified scholars, maybe more qualified in language than those self appointed Mullahs and Maulas. Also, this happens vise versa.

Anyways, let me not get carried away.

There has been many many views on this verse.
86:6 He was created from a water/liquid that spurts forth.

Mimmaain (Min Maain) means from a water or liquid. It does not mean sperm which I seriously don't know the origin of. Where in the world did that come from? That's why I was asking repeatedly. Nevertheless, Sperm is Nutfa.

36:77 Has the human being not seen that We have created him from a seed/sperm

The English word is derived (I am no English scholar) from the Greek word Sperma which is used in the bible to refer to Gods seed as well.
"Those who are born of God will not continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in them" in the first epistle of John (TNIV).

A liquid ejected coming from between the backbone/spine (Sulbi) and the ribs/loins (Taraib).

Sperm is made in the testes. Semen is a mixture. (news-medical.net)

The semen travels through the ejaculatory ducts and mixes with fluids from the seminal vesicles, the prostrate, and the bulbourethral glands.

The seminal vesicles produce a viscous, fructose-rich fluid forming around 65-70% of the semen base.

The white color of the semen is due to secretion from the prostate glands containing enzymes, citric acid, lipids, and acid phosphatase. This forms around 25-30% of the semen base.

At each ejaculation around 200-500 million sperms are released by the testes. This forms about 2-5% of the semen composition.

Apart from these, the bulbourethral glands produce a clear secretion. This helps in mobility of the sperm cells in the vagina and cervix. The glands’ secretion contribute less than 1% to the overall semen composition.

The semen comprises of:

• fructose
• ascorbic acid
• zinc
• cholesterol
• protein
• calcium
• chlorine
• blood group antigens
• citric acid
• DNA
• Magnesium
• vitamin B12
• phosphorus
• sodium
• potassium
• uric acid
• lactic acid
• nitrogen
• other nutrients

Semen per ejaculation
Ejaculation is a complex process and the compositions of the final semen come together in the posterior urethra and only become mixed after ejaculation is complete.

The volume of semen released per ejaculate varies. Approximately an average around 3.4 milliliters is ejaculated at one time. It can be as high as 4.99 milliliters or as low as 2.3 milliliters.

If there is a prolonged gap between ejaculations, the number of sperm in the semen increases but there is no overall increase in the semen.

Reviewed by April Cashin-Garbutt, BA Hons (Cantab)

Sources

1. http://www.cysonline.org/temp/ChronYoungSci1330-7548606_205806.pdf
2. http://www.urologyhealth.org/content/moreinfo/pe.pdf
3. http://www.infertilityeducation.org/pdf/Semen Analysis.pdf
4. ebooks.cambridge.org/chapter.jsf

The analysis is this.

Sperm is only a small part of the Semen. Sperm is only 2-5% of the Semen, and bubourethral glands produce less than 1%, the rest is manufactured in the Seminal Vesicle (65–75%) and Prostate (25–30%).

This is the theory of the liquid that the Quran is speaking of. Not the sperm (Nutfa).
The word used here for ejected is Dhafikin, used also for vasectomy.

If you search for images of any of the above you will see where are.

Some interesting points. Perhaps you'd like to take them to the thread I created specifically for the verses in question so we can dig into them more deeply there? =)

 

[firedragon]

No it isn't. It a red herring and out of context as the nouns are different. I already pointed this out before



Strawman. I didn't say that. I said in context to a person it has a meaning of physical violence as per Lane's Lexicon



First you need to actually use a lexicon. The other option is to actually acknowledge expert's in Arabic have been translating it as strike (violence) for centuries. Alas you can not due to an ideology. More so you are claiming all experts are wrong but you are right but have provided zero sources to show this.



As per above you again ignore lexicons and experts.



If you do not understand how a verb changes meaning due to the associated noun then my statement is fact. I already explained it multiple times. I am not going to repeat myself due to your inability or refusal to understand this.



I know enough to use lexicons and to use experts none of which you have done yet.



So now you understand the point you just asked about above?



Different nouns change the meaning of the verb. Already told you this multiple times




Different nouns and out of context fallacy





Read the pages. More than half the examples are violence and each case of violence is against a human.



Yet I provided a source showing this to be true. So no lie, you just didn't bother to read the source then made a strawman based on your denial



It actually is as it uses Lane's Lexicon and contains morphology. Alas you didn't check the source then made an error which you just repeated here.



Calling your bluff. Do take note that chaste is still violence. Do note that your separate claim is not in the text. So do you have another source you never bothered to read before citing it? You also had no issues with Lane's Lexicon until it support an opposing view more than your own

https://archive.org/stream/TafseerEngCommQuranLong/Tafseer Eng_Comm_Quran Long#page/n517/mode/2up



Hilarious since you present a source that you put forward as an expert yet they disagree with you and agree with me. I may not know Arabic but at least I can read my sources. Let's see you demonstrate that...



Apparatently it is above elementary school since experts agree with my view not your own. The only elementary stuff is the flawed methods you have attempted to use.



Which is merely translator commentary which still holds to the violence definition. Again you acknowledge a view you have opposed. The hadith only show that some people had issues with violence and attempted to tone it down which is just a sense of morality conflicting with an ideology. Now have you read other hadith in which a wife complained about her husbands abuse and Mo in the end told her to accept it and it was her fault.



You seem to think I should accept your word when you have demonstrated your own sources do not support your view. You have yet to convince me why I should take anything you have to say other than as a baseless claim backed by zero sources.



I didn't say that. However it seems like your position is to dismiss experts that for centuries support my view based only on your word and in the face of modern morals that make Islam look backwards.

Your argument seems to coming to a conclusion. I must know Arabic to question the Quran. However this raises an issue of if I need to know Arabic to question it why is there no standard in which converts must learn Arabic before actually converting. English translations are good enough for the convert but not good enough for the critic. Translations which you reject are good enough for the convert but not good enough for the critic.

Peace to you.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

There is argument A - the Quran was referring to a specific sect. Seeing as the Christianity in the Quran sometimes relates to non-canonical Gnostic texts:

The Gospel of the Egyptians sets forth a trinity of the Father, the Mother, and the Son. It ascribes the creation of the world to the foolish Sakla, who is a caricature of the Old Testament Jehovah. The Great Invisible Spirit sends Seth to save his seed. To accomplish his mission Seth puts on the living Jesus as a garment and brings "baptism" as a rite for re birth. Sodom and Gomorrah are honored as holy cities. (EM Yamauchi - the Nag Hammadi Library)

Another potential option is:

The Kollyridians, as Epiphanius describes them, were a group of women first in Thrace and Scythia and then in Arabia who observed a distinctive
and early form of Marian veneration and allowed women to serve as priests, both practices that he vigorously condemns. While Epiphanius’s
rejection of women priests is stridently clear from his account, the precise nature of the Kollyridians’ alleged ritual practices is somewhat less obvious,
and their admittedly unusual veneration of the Virgin has frequently been taken for the worship of Mary as some sort of goddess.
(Epiphanius of Salamis, the Kollyridians, and the Early Dormition Narratives: The Cult of the Virgin in the Fourth Century - S Shoemaker)

Many people have argued that there were sects who actively considered Mary a goddess. As such the Quran could be referring to such people.

There is also argument B (which I agree with) - There were Christian polemics against excessive veneration of the saints in general, and Mary in specific as such actions were fairly widespread. These people didn't literally see Mary as a god, but their excessive veneration was viewed by others as being comparable to this. That such people had crossed the boundaries of acceptable religious behaviour by implicitly deifying Mary (and other saints). The Quran is therefore in this tradition of religious criticism.

The Quran's focus on strict monotheism makes this interpretation much more likely.

The most convincing evidence against this as an 'error' though is the Quran's content. I often read people saying the Quran displays a primitive knowledge of Christianity as Muhammed copied some basic stuff and made mistakes with it.

This is based around the orthodox Islamic idea that the initial audience of the Quran were pagans, combined with a polemical view that Muhammed was a fraud who tricked these backward Arabs because they didn't know any better.

If you read the Quran though, it actually displays a good command of religious issues, and references ideas from a wide range of Judaeo-Christian sources. It is anything but a primitive copy of a basic Christianity. Moreover, if you read the Quran with an open mind, it is very clear that the audience is expected to be familiar with the Christian narratives and theological controversies. Unless you knew the Biblical narratives many passages would make no sense. It alludes to stories, it doesn't repeat them or narrate them.

To consider it an 'error' requires one to believe that the Quran is both theologically sophisticated and ignorant of some of the most basic aspects of Christian teachings. There's a much better argument that the Quran reflects a Christian environment and the 'polytheists' were actually erring Christians and Jews (the distinction between the 2 groups not always being perfectly clear like it is today).

Thanks for the response. I'm well aware of at least some of the common responses to the argument I put up, but was mostly interested in whether those claiming the book was perfect could argue against my points. Basically, even if the points I made can easily be refuted (which I'm unconvinced of...think of me as a swinging voter) it is still informative if someone claims the book is perfect but can't respond to even the most common and basic questions.

In terms of my research on this, the Kollyridians (or Collyridians in a couple of books I've read...*shrugs*) is definitely a concept I am familiar with, as well as the more general possibility that the Quran was referring to one of the many various Christian sects of the time/area.

For me, I tend to agree with you (I think, but correct me if I am misunderstanding your view) that the most likely reason for the referencing in the Quran is that the veneration of Mary, and indeed the whole (strange...in my opinion...lol) concept of the Trinity from the outside could easily and reasonably be mistaken for worship of Mary as some sort of demi-Goddess.

However, as much as I found your post interesting, I'm not convinced it renders my point meaningless. However, since @firedragon has been kind enough to directly respond, I'll try and clarify what I still think the issue is as a response to his post.

Cheers.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I wonder if you are making an assessment that Muslims think Mary is part of the trinity. I have spent time on some Christian profs who assess that way.

I think that is one possible interpretation of the relevant passages, but I'm not claiming it as certain. However, it's not whether Muslims think Mary is part of the Trinity that interests me. Rather, it's whether the Quran mentions her as part of the Trinity. Muslims don't claim divine perfection, but they do claim it on behalf of the Quran.

Anyway, there are several ways to look at the trinity and the Quranic injunction. I wonder though if that will answer your query.

At this point I'm just happy a Muslim member has responded! We can work through what I mean easily enough, I expect.

1. Wholly from a historians point of view, the Quran could have simply renarrated certain Christian stories about Jesus, Mary etc and changed the story to suit the authors agenda. But the Trinity is not clearly explained in the bible, in that case, the prophet Muhammed has to go on hearsay. Thats one view.

Yes. To be clear, I am an atheist, and also well aware of the doctrinal issues Christianity struggled with. Rationalisation of the Church (largely by the Byzantines) helped resolve these issues, but various Christian groups existed with different interpretations, or even levels of acceptance, of the Trinity. So whether the source material was the Bible or Christians themselves, misunderstanding is completely understandable, and potentially even unavoidable.

2. From a Muslims point of view, Quran clarifies the status of Jesus. He is not God, He is not the begotten son of God, Mary is not a deity, neither is Jesus. The Quranic argument is that there is one deity (Ilah) who is called "The Deity" (Al-Ilah=Allah). He is not begotten nor does he beget.

I know. He is 'merely' a prophet. A human. That's fine. Muslim rejection of the Trinity has no impact on my point, to be honest.

If you have an issue with Jesus and Mary eating food, thats to clarify that they are no deities. They eat, Deities or divine, Godly things dont eat. And if you assess that the Quran is thinking that the trinity is comprised of God, Jesus and Mary, thats an argument Rev. W. St. Clair Tisdall brought out some time ago. But that is with the understanding that Lailaha Illallah means there is no God but Allah. It actually means as I already said above that there is no deity but the deity. We are not supposed to take anything other other than THE GOD as deity.

Perhaps this gets closer to addressing my point, but I'm unsure. To re-state...I have no issue with the concept of Jesus and Mary as humans rather than deities, and no issue with the concept of Allah as THE GOD. These are very simple and basic Muslim beliefs, and I have no interest in questioning them.
Rather, my interest is in how misrepresentation of Christian beliefs can occur when the source for the Quran is neither the Bible, nor the immediate surroundings of Muhammed, but rather GOD.
It appears that whichever explanation is used for explaining why the Quran refers to the trinity in the manner it does, it relies on a level of localisation. It relies on some transmission of information or understanding from the earthly realm. These statements about the Trinity do not appear to have the sort of understanding of Christian belief that Allah (by definition) would have. Perhaps he was dumbing down the message for his target audience?

Citing that Mary eats food and is therefore not a deity makes perfect sense. But who are they refuting? Since when do Christians believe Mary wasn't human?

This is not relevant to the topic. You should open up a new thread.

With all due respect, that is complete rubbish. The OP claimed the Quran was perfect, and asked for counter-claims. AS you appear to be aware, there is an long-standing discussion on how the Trinity is referred to in the Quran, and why it would be referred to in such a manner. I honestly can't be bothered posting up arguments about salt and fresh water, since I am already well aware of the answers I would get. So instead I decided to post something with a little more nuance. But it is completely relevent to the perfection of the Quran.

The Trinity, and indeed Jesus as a prophet, is complete bunk to me, so please don't think I am arguing that the Quran is incorrect due to it's beliefs on the Trinity. Instead, I am arguing that the Quran is misrepresenting the very points it argues against. Which is a completely understandable, and human thing to do.

 

[YmirGF]

Which is a completely understandable, and human thing to do.

Though one would expect better from an all knowing deity worth its salt. It's similar to the hubris of Muhammad haggling with god almighty. One would assume Allah would have said something awesome like, "I know why you come and know what is in your heart. It is good. Five prayers a day works for me. Tea?"

BTW: I find your argument to be quite fascinating and is along the lines of my questioning the "no compulsion in religion" canard even though Muhammad was clearly compelled to "recite/read" three times before he gave in to Gabriel.

 

[firedragon]

I think that is one possible interpretation of the relevant passages, but I'm not claiming it as certain. However, it's not whether Muslims think Mary is part of the Trinity that interests me. Rather, it's whether the Quran mentions her as part of the Trinity. Muslims don't claim divine perfection, but they do claim it on behalf of the Quran.



At this point I'm just happy a Muslim member has responded! We can work through what I mean easily enough, I expect.



Yes. To be clear, I am an atheist, and also well aware of the doctrinal issues Christianity struggled with. Rationalisation of the Church (largely by the Byzantines) helped resolve these issues, but various Christian groups existed with different interpretations, or even levels of acceptance, of the Trinity. So whether the source material was the Bible or Christians themselves, misunderstanding is completely understandable, and potentially even unavoidable.



I know. He is 'merely' a prophet. A human. That's fine. Muslim rejection of the Trinity has no impact on my point, to be honest.



Perhaps this gets closer to addressing my point, but I'm unsure. To re-state...I have no issue with the concept of Jesus and Mary as humans rather than deities, and no issue with the concept of Allah as THE GOD. These are very simple and basic Muslim beliefs, and I have no interest in questioning them.
Rather, my interest is in how misrepresentation of Christian beliefs can occur when the source for the Quran is neither the Bible, nor the immediate surroundings of Muhammed, but rather GOD.
It appears that whichever explanation is used for explaining why the Quran refers to the trinity in the manner it does, it relies on a level of localisation. It relies on some transmission of information or understanding from the earthly realm. These statements about the Trinity do not appear to have the sort of understanding of Christian belief that Allah (by definition) would have. Perhaps he was dumbing down the message for his target audience?

Citing that Mary eats food and is therefore not a deity makes perfect sense. But who are they refuting? Since when do Christians believe Mary wasn't human?



With all due respect, that is complete rubbish. The OP claimed the Quran was perfect, and asked for counter-claims. AS you appear to be aware, there is an long-standing discussion on how the Trinity is referred to in the Quran, and why it would be referred to in such a manner. I honestly can't be bothered posting up arguments about salt and fresh water, since I am already well aware of the answers I would get. So instead I decided to post something with a little more nuance. But it is completely relevent to the perfection of the Quran.

The Trinity, and indeed Jesus as a prophet, is complete bunk to me, so please don't think I am arguing that the Quran is incorrect due to it's beliefs on the Trinity. Instead, I am arguing that the Quran is misrepresenting the very points it argues against. Which is a completely understandable, and human thing to do.

Alright.

The Quran, when it says "three" does not specify what the trinity is. I have met enough Christians who say that Jesus, God and the holy spirit are all God. Then there are those who say that Jesus is not God but part of God or Godhood. Some Christians did worship Mary as a deity. Some dont worship her like worshiping God but as a divine being or a saint who answers prayers. Most Christians worship Jesus. But in general the doctrine is that in nomine et fili spiritus sancti, thats what we are talking about.

4:171 O people of the Book, do not overstep in your system, nor say about God except the truth. Jesus, son of Mary, was no more than a messenger of God and His word, which He cast to Mary, and a Spirit from Him. So believe in God and His messengers, and do not say: “Three.” Cease, for it is better for you. God is only One
god, be He glorified that He should have a son! To Him is all that is in the heavens and the earth; and God is enough as a Caretaker.

This verse cites 4 persons or entities. Mary, Jesus, God and a Spirit. Thus, those who say that Islam made an error by thinking Mary, Jesus and God are the trinity, why didnt they include the Spirit? Thats because it says three and they cant add a fourth person thus conveniently dropped the Spirit from the equation.

You cited another verse.

5:116 And God will say: “O Jesus, son of Mary, did you tell the people to take you and your mother as gods (Ilah) other than God (Allah)?” He said: “Glory to you, I cannot say what I have no right of. If I had said it then You know it, You know what is in my self while I do not know what is in Your self. You are the Knower of the unseen.”

Ilah does not mean Allah. A deity is not equal to THE DEITY. You cannot even pray to Jesus or his mother. Thats what this verse is saying.

People cite this verse as if it says "Did you tell them to take Jesus, Mary and God as Gods" when in fact it says "Did you tell them to take Jesus and Mary as deities OTHER THAN God".

Even then if you insist on it check the next verses out.

9:31 They have taken their Priests and Monks to be patrons besides God, and the Messiah, son of Mary, while they were only commanded to serve One god, there is no god except He, be He glorified against what they set up.

This verse says that people took Priests and Monks and Jesus as patrons for veneration as Ilah. Thus they should be in the same equation as well.

7:190 But when He gave them an upright child, they set up partners with Him in what He had given them. God be exalted above what they set up as partners.

Not even a child

18:42 So his fruits were ruined, and he began turning his hands at that which he had spent on it while it remained destroyed upon its branches. And he said: “I wish I had not set up any partner with my Lord!”

Not even property or wealth.

16:20 As for those they call on besides God, they do not create a thing, but are themselves created!
16:21 They are dead, not alive, and they do not perceive when they will be resurrected.

Can you see? They are all dead, and they do not create anything. That includes Jesus, Mary, other saints etc.

25:43 Have you seen the one who has taken his desire as his god? Will you be a caretaker over him?

Above verse tells you not to take your ego or desire as God. Thus, desire also must enter the trinity.

45:23 Have you seen the one who took his desire as his god, and God led him astray, despite his knowledge, and He sealed his hearing and his heart, and He made a veil on his eyes? Who then can guide him after God? Will you not remember?

Another verse talks about desire as God.

In the Quran, there is no one who answers prayers, other than The God. No saint, no divinity, no deity. Not only that brother, La ilaha illallah means you should not take anything as divine. Even your wealth, children or your own ego not to be taken as divine and all of these are explained as "Ilah". Ilah means divinity or deity. When you translate it as god people think "wow now there". Hold on, please try and think from the language perspective, ilah is never ever Allah. Even your ego and desire can be ilah.

Thus when the verse says that you took Jesus and Mary as ilah, it means as divine, deity or divinity. There is no divinity except God. That is not about the trinity, no way.

In that case to sum it up, those who say that the Quran has misinterpreted the trinity and thought that Christians believe in Jesus and mary as part of the trinity, then they should add the spirit and ego/desire also into the same equation (Thats neglecting a lot of others).

Peace.

 

[firedragon]

Though one would expect better from an all knowing deity worth its salt. It's similar to the hubris of Muhammad haggling with god almighty. One would assume Allah would have said something awesome like, "I know why you come and know what is in your heart. It is good. Five prayers a day works for me. Tea?"

BTW: I find your argument to be quite fascinating and is along the lines of my questioning the "no compulsion in religion" canard even though Muhammad was clearly compelled to "recite/read" three times before he gave in to Gabriel.

For you to claim that Muhammed was clearly compelled by Gabriel, you seem to truly believe that the hadith is 100% authentic.

 

[YmirGF]

For you to claim that Muhammed was clearly compelled by Gabriel, you seem to truly believe that the hadith is 100% authentic.

Not true, firedragoon. I didn't write the stories for Pete's sake. I think all of it is a steaming pile of bovine byproduct, including the Qur'an. The point is if the earliest accounts of Muhammad's encounter with Gabriel are true, that meeting makes a mockery of the Qur'an's famous line of "no compulsion blah blah blah". No doubt this is one of those cases where the hadith is clearly wrong because it goes against what is written in the Qur'an, LOL, because nothing in the Qur'an can possibly be wrong.

 

[firedragon]

Not true, firedragoon. I didn't write the stories for Pete's sake. I think all of it is a steaming pile of bovine byproduct, including the Qur'an. The point is if the earliest accounts of Muhammad's encounter with Gabriel are true, that meeting makes a mockery of the Qur'an's famous line of "no compulsion blah blah blah". No doubt this is one of those cases where the hadith is clearly wrong because it goes against what is written in the Qur'an, LOL, because nothing in the Qur'an can possibly be wrong.

I know that you dont believe in them brother and though being a Muslim, even if my beliefs are such, I respect that.

Okay think of this. As a skeptic (I mean about Quran and Hadith), do you at least accept that the Quran is older and more reliable? (at this momement this is not about Quran being perfect or wrong etc).

Well, come to think of it, you dont have to answer that.

 

[paarsurrey]

3. As for those females from whom you fear desertion (Nushuz),
a. then you shall advise them,
b. and abandon them in the bedchamber,
c. and separate (Idribuhunna) from them.
4. If they respond to you, then do not seek a way over them; God is Most High, Great. – Quran 4:34

You have rendered the meaning as per the context verses.
Thanks and regards

 

[firedragon]

You have rendered the meaning as per the context verses.
Thanks and regards

Thanks brother.

Actually, the context of classical Arabic and the whole of the Quran.
One word will have several meanings, but this word laraba is the height of it in classical Arabic. I dont think there is anything more diverse in the vocabulary. But when you take the context of the Quranic language, its painstaking, but its pretty plain. This kind of thing crops up when you go through 6,346 verses holistically. But, you must start with the criterion, not with ahadith written centuries later and attributed to the prophet. Attributed.

Peace bro.

 

[Shad]

Hilarious to see people accepting a claim from someone that's own sources contradict his views.