There are no mistakes in Quran

[Shad]

Oh good God.

Laraba and Daraba are the same.

I was pointing out that you deny the same argument you have used when the opposition uses it as well.

 

[Shad]

Fib.

Nope. I have been talking to Hassan for years.

 

[Shad]

Bro, Amyn B. Sajoo is a respected lecturer at SFU too, but he is not a linguistic scholar. He is more of an expert in history and religion etc. You should not quote people like this.

I already provided sources of experts in Arabic, religion, ahadith, etc. You denied each one. I mention the resident scholar, at the time, you deny this as well. In the end you deny every source but provide none yourself.

So you claim that it was Dr. Sajoo who told you that the Quranic verse should be different in order for it to mean a firm separation?

Never did. He just never pointed out any issue with 4:34, no controversy over the interpretation. His wife, who also taught at the time, talks about 4:34 being a major issue with domestic violence within some Muslim communities. Neither questioned experts that have been verified repeatedly. They are not so quick to discard whatever does not align with their sense of morality.

 

[firedragon]

I already provided sources of experts in Arabic, religion, ahadith, etc. You denied each one. I mention the resident scholar, at the time, you deny this as well. In the end you deny every source but provide none yourself.



Never did. He just never pointed out any issue with 4:34, no controversy over the interpretation. His wife, who also taught at the time, talks about 4:34 being a major issue with domestic violence within some Muslim communities. Neither questioned experts that have been verified repeatedly. They are not so quick to discard whatever does not align with their sense of morality.

My question was

So you claim that it was Dr. Sajoo who told you that the Quranic verse should be different in order for it to mean a firm separation?

 

[firedragon]

I was pointing out that you deny the same argument you have used when the opposition uses it as well.

Nope.

 

[Shad]

Nope.

Yes you did since the root word for the verse is still Daraba which you denied when presented in an argument against your view. Blatant double-standards.

"Plus, the sources you used use the root word Laraba, read it again. The Quran uses Ilribuhunna."

Laraba and Daraba are the same.

http://corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=Drb#(4:34:29)

If these are the same then you contradict your previous argument. My source used Daraba and so did your own which contradict your view.

My question was

So you claim that it was Dr. Sajoo who told you that the Quranic verse should be different in order for it to mean a firm separation?

Nope. I already answered this. Sajoo himself never pointed out any view such as your own when it comes to the verse.

 

[firedragon]

Yes you did since the root word for the verse is still Daraba which you denied when presented in an argument against your view. Blatant double-standards.

Show me mate.

Nope. I already answered this. Sajoo himself never pointed out any view such as your own when it comes to the verse.

Then who gave you the example at SFU?

 

[Shad]

Show me mate.

Already did but I edited the comment after this post and your reply.

Then who gave you the example at SFU?

No one did at SFU. Stop arguing your strawman. Hassan provided the example. I said there is no need to talk to scholars as the scholars for the program had no issue. The scholars from the Surrey Mosque that helped fund the program had no issue with the translations. Only you do and other Muslim that drop sources that contradict your claim and support my own. Like Paar linking the verse then failing to read the English commentary which I already linked days ago.

 

[Augustus]

I see this over and over again, it's quite amusing. But perhaps it's explainable. A highly religious person relies more on faith than on critical thinking, so perhaps it's easier for a faith-based thinker to discount outside expertise. Even those experts who have devoted their lives to the study of the faithful's scripture.

Could it not be argued that looking beyond traditional interpretations is the more critical approach? It shares a commonality with critical scholarship after all.

The Quran is full of words with multiple potential meanings, and even words that people can only guess as to what they mean. Choosing such meanings is part of tafsir, and nobody is forced to accepting that any subjective interpretation is the only acceptable one.

People have always been interpreting scripture in new ways, including at one point those who established what is now 'traditional' (some 200-600 years after Muhammed died). Seeing as you are someone who calls for 'reform' in Islam, shouldn't you actually appreciate such attempts to move beyond medieval interpretations of texts?

 

[icehorse]

Hey Augustus,

I think your point is a good one. It strikes me that your suggestion isn't what typically gets discussed. If the tone of these discussions was geared towards reform, I'd agree with you.

 

[Shad]

Could it not be argued that looking beyond traditional interpretations is the more critical approach? It shares a commonality with critical scholarship after all.

The Quran is full of words with multiple potential meanings, and even words that people can only guess as to what they mean. Choosing such meanings is part of tafsir, and nobody is forced to accepting that any subjective interpretation is the only acceptable one.

People have always been interpreting scripture in new ways, including at one point those who established what is now 'traditional' (some 200-600 years after Muhammed died). Seeing as you are someone who calls for 'reform' in Islam, shouldn't you actually appreciate such attempts to move beyond medieval interpretations of texts?

An issue is that many still hold to the religious doctrine, dogma, etc when putting forward other interpretations that do not match tradition. As per the OP if there is an inaccuracy regarding a definition of a word in a verse then there are errors, or an error, in the Quran. Verse 4:34 did create just such a tradition which is opposed and supported by different people.

 

[firedragon]

I already provided sources of experts in Arabic, religion, ahadith, etc. You denied each one. I mention the resident scholar, at the time, you deny this as well. In the end you deny every source but provide none yourself.



Never did. He just never pointed out any issue with 4:34, no controversy over the interpretation. His wife, who also taught at the time, talks about 4:34 being a major issue with domestic violence within some Muslim communities. Neither questioned experts that have been verified repeatedly. They are not so quick to discard whatever does not align with their sense of morality.

Once it was SFU where you got an example of an Arabic word which you didnt know how to pronounce.
Then you were given an example of a sentence in Arabic which should replace the Quranic word.
Then you gave a scholar, Dr. Sajoo who I contacted.
Then it was a closed group that gave you that example.
Then it was some guy called Hassan who gave you that example.
Then you tell me there is no reason to contact scholars.

It only shows that intentions are flawed.

Peace.

 

[firedragon]

Hey Augustus,

I think your point is a good one. It strikes me that your suggestion isn't what typically gets discussed. If the tone of these discussions was geared towards reform, I'd agree with you.

I tried to stick to the topic but it was geared away long ago.

Nevertheless it has been years since people tried reform, but even those secular people who propose reform also do not let people because they would like the religion to remain the same. Maybe they like the opportunities to insult.

 

[Shad]

Once it was SFU where you got an example of an Arabic word which you didnt know how to pronounce.

Never claimed that. Strawman. You put two replies together and made an assumption

Then you were given an example of a sentence in Arabic which should replace the Quranic word.

Yes an example.

Then you gave a scholar, Dr. Sajoo who I contacted.

Okay.

Then it was a closed group that gave you that example.

No, you said I go the example from a specific website. I told you I got the example from the source of the article on the website.

Then it was some guy called Hassan who gave you that example.

Did you not read your own link to the website. Here I will quote and link to what you obvious can not or did not read.

http://councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=9243.msg236249#msg236249

Notice the name.....

"The author, Hassan Radwan identifies as an Agnostic Muslim and is the founder of the first Agnostic Muslims organization. You can read more about him and the work of Agnostic Muslims at http://agnoslims.com . His prior work includes founding CEMB "

Then you tell me there is no reason to contact scholars.

I said there was no reason o do so as I have posted links of scholars supporting my view. Your view is the one that requires scholars support, not mine. Mine is based on their work after all.

It only shows that intentions are flawed.

No just that you thinking process is flawed.

 

[icehorse]

I tried to stick to the topic but it was geared away long ago.

Nevertheless it has been years since people tried reform, but even those secular people who propose reform also do not let people because they would like the religion to remain the same. Maybe they like the opportunities to insult.

Hi firedragon - i'd like to respond, but i'm not sure i fully understand your post. can you state it differently?

 

[paarsurrey]

I tried to stick to the topic but it was geared away long ago.
Nevertheless it has been years since people tried reform, but even those secular people who propose reform also do not let people because they would like the religion to remain the same. Maybe they like the opportunities to insult.

That is one aspect of the issue.
Nevertheless, with the advent of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad- the Promised Messiah and Imam-Mahdi, the reformation of Islam as per the prophecies of Muhammad is in full swing.
Regards

 

[Aquitaine]

That is one aspect of the issue.
Nevertheless, with the advent of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad- the Promised Messiah and Imam-Mahdi, the reformation of Islam as per the prophecies of Muhammad is in full swing.
Regards

You're an Ahmadiyya muslim right? What do you say to those muslims who do not recognise the Ahmadiyya reform movement?

 

[serp777]

It is due to wrong understanding of Quran, much propagated by the opposing websites.
If one studies Quran oneself:

• intently
• unbiased
• with an open mind
• and with correct approach

One won't find any mistakes in Quran.
Thread open for discussion to everybody.
Regards

Proof that the Quran has no mistakes? Have you converted it into logical syntax and then shown how everything is consistent based on certain axioms? if you haven't, then you cannot claim this nonsense.

 

[firedragon]

Never claimed that. Strawman. You put two replies together and made an assumption



Yes an example.



Okay.



No, you said I go the example from a specific website. I told you I got the example from the source of the article on the website.



Did you not read your own link to the website. Here I will quote and link to what you obvious can not or did not read.

http://councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=9243.msg236249#msg236249

Notice the name.....

"The author, Hassan Radwan identifies as an Agnostic Muslim and is the founder of the first Agnostic Muslims organization. You can read more about him and the work of Agnostic Muslims at http://agnoslims.com . His prior work includes founding CEMB "



I said there was no reason o do so as I have posted links of scholars supporting my view. Your view is the one that requires scholars support, not mine. Mine is based on their work after all.



No just that you thinking process is flawed.

The inception of this was me saying that we are reinterpreting the Quran. So obviously it will be a new view.
Your example from Hassan is as I said is wrong. I explained that. Completely bogus argument.

 

[firedragon]

Proof that the Quran has no mistakes? Have you converted it into logical syntax and then shown how everything is consistent based on certain axioms? if you haven't, then you cannot claim this nonsense.

When you say "claim this nonsense" you have already disregarded 'this' as nonsense. Whats the point? If you think so, you must prove it. At least one point. Otherwise you are just laying down insults, nothing more.