There are no mistakes in Quran

[Jabar]

@gnostic I never said it was, it is not a science book. That does not mean it does not contain science in it. What are you saying? I just gave you an example of the discoveries specifically one in the 1900s and such. You are absurd if you say a scripture is an idiot book because you believe it offers no scientific knowledge as it obviously does. Those myth and superstitions have evidence behind them. Is there anything that shows Jinns are fiction, no. Who knows there might be a scientific fact found in the future relating to Jinns and talking animals. Just because we believe in Jinns and talking animals does not mean we are superstitous.

 

[Jabar]

@gnostic There are many evidences that came true. Different life forms are known to live throughout the universe according to the Quran. It is really possible that this may be the case. http://www.space.com/29041-alien-life-evidence-by-2025-nasa.html.

 

[Jabar]

@gnostic Check this out brother:http://www.irfi.org/articles/articles_1_50/jinn_a_scientific_analysis.htm

 

[Jabar]

@gnostic Of course when the science is lacking the knowledge of explaining the soul of a human which a hundred times more powerful than human then how the vision of a creature who is another part of the globe could be driven through.

 

[Jabar]

@gnostic You believe in things that are myths. But you consider talking animals and Jinns that Allah mention as myths and fables. That is hypocrisy.

 

[YmirGF]

Proof is not for Mathematics only. The Qur´an still contains the Mathematical proof you speak of. Besides, why do you not accept this proof? You are only enforced to your own beliefs but are not open to listen to the information i provide. Clearly not because of the fact that you are still in doubt about the Quran scientifically. You say i do not understand what am i saying when i am claiming something to be true. But how so? I provided evidence that clearly shows the Truth.

The supposed "truth" from the point of view of a fanatic.

How do you claim that my claims are silly nonsense. You are just stating that you believe that but give no evidence whatsoever. How does the Muslim word lag so far behind in scientific accomplishments. That is absurd for you to say. At that time period people never even though of it, there were no evidence or anything of that sort. Back in the 1920s this was firstly discovered. The Quran was revealed 1400 years ago, there is no way that a human could know that information. You are just arrogant and refuse to believe the Truth. Whatever you believe in, it does not match up to the Quran or Islam in any way.

No original ideas in 500 years and yet the Muslim view is still the supreme view on the planet. That is just so precious. Fanaticism is never is good thing, but it is especially dangerous when tarted up in religious clothing.

@gnostic You believe in things that are myths. But you consider talking animals and Jinns that Allah mention as myths and fables. That is hypocrisy.

Only a genuine religious fanatic could make such a ludicrous statement.

 

[gnostic]

Your logic is circular.

Do you know what that means?

Ah, no, he doesn't know what circular reasoning is.

You should read some of replies in the thread that he started:

Is science based on circular reasoning?​

With each reply, everything went increasingly sideways.

Eventually he thought that (A) logic have to with geometry (posts 52, 59), and (B) that circular reasoning is good, because it is "round" in shape (115, 127, 131).

 

[YmirGF]

@gnostic Check this out brother:http://www.irfi.org/articles/articles_1_50/jinn_a_scientific_analysis.htm

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Oh, I do so love the Muslim sense of humor. Simply hilarious.

 

[gnostic]

@gnostic I never said it was, it is not a science book. That does not mean it does not contain science in it. What are you saying? I just gave you an example of the discoveries specifically one in the 1900s and such. You are absurd if you say a scripture is an idiot book because you believe it offers no scientific knowledge as it obviously does. Those myth and superstitions have evidence behind them. Is there anything that shows Jinns are fiction, no. Who knows there might be a scientific fact found in the future relating to Jinns and talking animals. Just because we believe in Jinns and talking animals does not mean we are superstitous.

If Allah is really a god, then he wouldn't write a book as primitive and as vague, as the Qur'an. If Allah is indeed the author of the Qur'an, then he has no more intelligence than a 7th century shepherd.

Science is supposed to explain things. The Qur'an explain nothing that it vaguely describe.

An explanation and description are two different words.

A description only tries to describe the "what"; it doesn't mean it is accurate or factual.

An explanation, on the other hand, do more than just describe the "what", it explain the "how" and the "why".

That's why I call the Qur'an an idiot book.

But don't get me wrong, I think that ALL SCRIPTURES (so not just the Qur'an), are fascinating to read, but they are all idiot books, because of their reliance on superstitions and false information, and too many people take them too seriously.

 

[Jabar]

@gnostic It is not vague. That is what you misconcept it as. You think it is vague? It is not vague at all. You say Quran explains nothing vaguely?
Could it be from earth?

11:61 It is He Who hath produced you from the earth

Or dry clay (Arabic Salsaal)?

15:26,28,33 We created man from sounding clay
17:61 ... Thou didst create from clay
32:7 He began the creation of man from clay

Did we come from nothing?

19:67 We created him before out of nothing

No, we did not!

52:35 Were they created of nothing?

Did we come from mud?

23:12 We created man from a product of wet earth (loam) (Pickthall)
23:12 Man We did create from a quintessence (of clay)
38:71 I am about to create a mortal out of mire

Or water?

25:54 It is He Who has created man from water (see also 21:30, 24:45)

Could it be dust?

3:59 He created (Jesus) out of dust
30:20 He created you from dust
35:11 Allah did create you from dust ....

Perhaps we arose from the dead or from one person?

30:19 It is He who brings out the living from the dead
39:6 He created you from a single Person (see also 4:1)

To resolve the considerable ambiguity about what exactly we are made of, it has been suggested that all of the above are complimentary accounts, in the same way that a loaf of bread could be said to be made of dough, flour, carbohydrate or molecules. This evades the issue however. The metaphorical description of God making man out of the dust of the earth is ancient and predates the Qur'an by thousands of years; it is found in the Bible in Genesis 2:7. If this was literal it would be in direct scientific conflict with evolutionists who maintain that life was created out of the oceans, but Muslims maintain that we were created both from the oceans and from earth. These mistranslations and misinterpretation makes you think it is vague. But when translated to its correct definition and read without misconcepting the things it is not vague at all and defines it specifically.

 

[YmirGF]

To resolve the considerable ambiguity about what exactly we are made of, it has been suggested that all of the above are complimentary accounts, in the same way that a loaf of bread could be said to be made of dough, flour, carbohydrate or molecules. This evades the issue however. The metaphorical description of God making man out of the dust of the earth is ancient and predates the Qur'an by thousands of years; it is found in the Bible in Genesis 2:7. If this was literal it would be in direct scientific conflict with evolutionists who maintain that life was created out of the oceans, but Muslims maintain that we were created both from the oceans and from earth. These mistranslations and misinterpretation makes you think it is vague. But when translated to its correct definition and read without misconcepting the things it is not vague at all and defines it specifically.

It could also be direct evidence that Muslim "thinkers" don't have the slightest idea about what they are talking about.

The giveaway here is your use of "evolutionists". You have to understand that most folks with an IQ higher than a lettuce leaf are not impressed by "creationist" imaginings about how it all began. Perhaps if you understood how miserably "creationism" is seen by modern intellectuals and scientists you would appreciate that the Islamic Creationist slant is also unlikely to appeal to any who have a capacity for critical thought.

 

[Jabar]

@gnostic Allah revealed Quran in a very simple form, it's very clear in the meanings, if you talk about the basics of Quran. But people twist the meanings in the name of interpretation to make it look vague and to suit their purpose. No fault of Allah or Quran, but of people.

 

[Jabar]

@YmirGF You are just stating your beliefs. Just because some Atheists disagree does not mean anything, because there will always be disagreement in religion on earth. You are just being a fanatic. I already understand how miserably creationism is seen by the modern ´´intellectuals´´. However, the claims they have on the creationism being unrealistic are indeed misconceptions.That does not mean that creationism is false. I do not get what you are trying to prove out of this. You say that i use evolution, how so? You are now stating false claims. You really need to comprehend what i say and also stop putting things in the wrong context and give evidence behind your claims.

 

[Jabar]

What do you believe in? @YmirGF

 

[YmirGF]

@YmirGF You are just stating your beliefs. Just because some Atheists disagree does not mean anything, because there will always be disagreement in religion on earth. You are just being a fanatic. I already understand how miserably creationism is seen by the modern ´´intellectuals´´. However, the claims they have on the creationism being unrealistic are indeed misconceptions.That does not mean that creationism is false. I do not get what you are trying to prove out of this. You say that i use evolution, how so? You are now stating false claims. You really need to comprehend what i say and also stop putting things in the wrong context and give evidence behind your claims.

I can see you may have a language barrier that is causing a reading comprehension problem. I'll take that into consideration.
Atheism is not a religion. Get over it, already. You are delusional if you think those who dispute the moronic creationist telling of events are simply dealing with misconceptions about creationism. A nice try though. Likewise, though creationism cannot be outright proven false is hardly reason to continue to champion to the Creationist cause, however, we do have mountains of evidence showing that the Theory of Evolution is largely correct. It really is no longer disputable by any credible thinkers, that is... though that doesn't seem to have the slightest impact on fanatical religious zealots.

I did not say you used evolution, I said you used the term, (popular among religious fanatics), "evolutionists". It is a buzzword that just leaps out of a sentence as no one with any intellectual credibility uses the term "evolutionists".

I'm using your own hallucinatory logic as evidence. I do not feel a need to further support my statements.

 

[YmirGF]

What do you believe in?

It is unlikely that you could possibly understand, so I will save us both the bother. I am an anomaly that should not exist and yet, here I am.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Ah, no, he doesn't know what circular reasoning is.

You should read some of replies in the thread that he started:

Is science based on circular reasoning?​

With each reply, everything went increasingly sideways.

Eventually he thought that (A) logic have to with geometry (posts 52, 59), and (B) that circular reasoning is good, because it is "round" in shape (115, 127, 131).

He is beyond reasoning then.

if I where Allah, frankly I would be insulted.

 

[firedragon]

It is unlikely that you could possibly understand, so I will save us both the bother. I am an anomaly that should not exist and yet, here I am.

Matrix.

 

[firedragon]

I only said he say no issues with 4:34 as it was translated as it is accept as accurate by credible universities. I took courses under Sajoo not Ghani. Besides you would reject Ghani on the same grounds as you reject Sajoo. Is Taj Hashmi good enough since he also writes about the issues caused by 4:34.



So I should keep contacting them until I find one that agrees with FD and ignore those that do not agree.... It is a wide subject as it makes Islam look poorly.
I only care about modern translations which not only deny the long history behind the meaning of this verse but also those that still cling to the same dogma after having dismissed their own history.
I pointed out HD had issues with Laraba then later contradicts himself when stating both are the same...
Quote names. Being told not to is an excuse. I never went to FD, he responded to me. He seemed confused over the claims of a doctorate.

Contact any of them. I dont care. If you like Ill send you my name which you can quote. Even to Dr. Sajoo. Any time, Any day mate.



Already writes about the issues due to her interest in politics. She does not change the meaning of the verse.



All she did was the same thing as FD, ignore current translations and find one definition from Lane's Lexicon that makes it look different. Do note that Lane's Lexicon gives an example of such a change in 43:5 not 4:34. Al-Azhar University rejects her translation.



Quran only Muslim, a minority that rejects translation. Also he put forward code 19 myth. His translations is covered in an ideological screed.



Same argument as Bakhtair almost word for word. Ignores tradition in favour of a modern view. Makes the same mistake as Bakhtiar claiming Muhammand never hit his wives which is clear in hadith he did at least once



Same argument again, granted he was a co-author with Ibrahim. Ignores tradition when it suites him.

Do note you are citing fringe work especially that of Edip Yuksel. If Edip Yuksel is qualified, he taught Arabic, than Hassan is as well, he taught Arabic....

Thus you reject scholars who understand the Quran from its own merit.
And you support those who use dubious and hearsay based documents written centuries later.

Bravo.

 

[firedragon]

The Qur'an is a joke. It is not historical accurate in any way, not even when it concerning events about Muhammad himself. What we do have, is that Muhammad is a liar, not just about the Qur'an, but also his claims of being a prophet, and meeting archangel Gabriel. You cannot present any evidence, because there are none.

I would like to see your research for the conclusions.

• Inaccurate Events about Muhammed in the Quran
• Quran is a Joke