There are no mistakes in Quran

[Jabar]

Btw you say it opens more errors, can you tell me just one error it has? @Augustus

 

[firedragon]

@firedragon Do not take the wrong idea, brother. Please stop making it as though i am trying to make you feel low. But you should be telling that to @Shad because he obviously does not read it when he pointed that mistake out and made me confused as i thought it was accurate. I did read the Quran, just he confused me for a second. I just admit that i made a mistake, this happens a lot especially with debates against other beliefs.
Peace.

Bro. Too old for that.

And what was the mistake you speak of? What confused you?

 

[Augustus]

You say some apologists have disapproved of Quran being divine

No. They haven't disapproved of it being Divine. They are Muslims and believe it to be the word of God. They just don't believe that Divinity requires scientific miracles, and prefer to base their arguments on other aspects of the Quran to support its Divinity.

. The Quran contains scientific evidence that science has approved of once again so to say that it is not a book that contains miracle is absurd.

No it doesn't. You are imagining this based on very, very subjective readings of vague, ambiguous verses.

You say they do not have expertise in science but if it is approved by science then how could have it possibly contain an error?

It is not approved by 'science'. If it was, you would find that lots more scientists would have converted to Islam when they realised the miraculous nature of the Quran's scientific knowledge.

It is not a criticism of the Quran to say it contains no scientific miracles. Islam had existed for 1350 years before anybody made this claim. It is just an innovation that does nothing but make its proponents look foolish.

Muhammed never claimed any scientific miracles, so it shouldn't be a problem if there aren't any. Only by insisting that they exist can you be proved wrong.

 

[Shad]

You do realise that when you claim 'scientific miracles' you make the Quran far more open to errors.

Scientific ideas often change, and if you insist that a certain verse means 'miracle', then if the scientific view is later refined that you have just created an error. The people who claim these miracles are not scientists, but apologists. As such they frequently make mistakes with the 'science' part and end up looking foolish.

On the other hand, if you don't make any claims of miracles, you can simply treat the verse as being figurative scripture in which case there is no error. The Quran itself claims no scientific miracles, thats just something that some Muslims invented in the 1980s and was funded by the Saudis.

Actually, some apologists now reject the miracles hypothesis as it was causing people to apostatise when they found out it was false.

Since the eighties there has been a growing movement of Muslim academics and apologists using science to establish the miraculous and Divine nature of the Qur’ānic discourse. On a grass roots level, Muslims across the world, especially in the West, try to articulate the veracity of Islam by using verses that allude to science as evidence for the Qur’ān’s Divine authorship... Regrettably, the scientific miracles narrative has become an intellectual embarrassment for Muslim apologists, including myself. A few years ago I took some activists to Ireland to engage with the audience and speakers at the World Atheist Convention. Throughout the convention we had a stall outside the venue and as a result positively engaged with hundreds of atheists, including the popular atheist academics Professor P. Z. Myers and Professor Richard Dawkins. During our impromptu conversation with Professor Myers we ended up talking about God’s existence and the Divine nature of the Qur’ān. The topic of embryology came up, and Professor Myers being an expert in the field challenged our narrative. He claimed that the Qur’ān did not predate modern scientific conclusions in the field. As a result of posting the video[8] of the engagement on-line we faced a huge intellectual backlash. We received innumerable amounts of emails by Muslims and non-Muslims. The Muslims were confused and had doubts, and the non-Muslims were bemused with the whole approach... It is time more people from the Muslim community spoke out against this problematic approach to verifying the Divine nature of the Qur’ān. It has become an intellectual embarrassment for Muslim apologists and it has exposed the lack of coherence in the way they have formulated the argument. Significantly, many Muslims who converted to Islam due to the scientific miracles narrative, have left the religion due to encountering opposing arguments.

http://www.hamzatzortzis.com/essays...n-contain-scientific-miracles-a-new-approach/

Hamza supported their miracle claims in public, and often, until over time his numerous public debates added up to he was shown to be wrong. So he did not reject these views until it was an embarrassing to embrace these views. He still argued embryology for years after the event with Myers. Hamza is dishonest.

 

[Shad]

Scientists say that before the galaxies in the universe were formed, celestial matter was initially in the form of gaseous matter. In short, huge gaseous matter or clouds were present before the formation of the galaxies. To describe initial celestial matter, the word ‘smoke’ is more appropriate than gas. The following Qur’aanic verse refers to this state of the universe by the word dhukhan which means smoke.

Yet they clearly say that these objects did not exist at the Big Bang with your verse place the Earth at this event. So scientists in no way support the Quran at all thus the error still exists. Smoke is not gas so another error.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoke

"Moreover, He Comprehended In His design the sky, And it had been (as) smoke: He said to it And to the earth: ‘Come ye together, Willingly or unwillingly.’ They said: ‘We do come (Together), in willing obedience.’"

[Al-Qur’aan 41:11]
@Shad This proves your misconception.

No it does. It only shows you do not know the different between smoke and gas. The same mistake Mo made as he didn't know the difference either.

 

[Augustus]

Btw you say it opens more errors, can you tell me just one error it has? @Augustus

I have no interest in pointing out 'errors' in anybody's religious scripture. They are scriptures, not academic journals and should be treated as such.

It's not too difficult to point out errors in the 'scientific miracles' interpretations, but I don't consider these 'errors' in the Quran, just errors in modern interpretation of these verses.

Read the article or watch the video by the Muslim apologists for a more in depth analysis.

 

[Jabar]

@Shad Firstly, Allah describes the heavens as various different things. In this verse: And it is We Who have constructed the heaven with might, and verily, it is We Who are steadily expanding it. (Qur'an, 51:47) He is referring to the space. The Arabic word "moosiaaoona" in the term "inna lamoosiaaoona," translated into English as "it is We Who are steadily expanding it", comes from the verb "evsea," meaning "to expand." The prefix "la" emphasises the following name or title and adds a sense of "to a great extent." This expression therefore means "We expand the sky or the universe to a great extent." This is the very conclusion that science has reached today. 1
If Allah is mentioning the universe then he has created it. Now you will say ''Oh but it does not say that Big Bang Theory created it which has been approved of in modern science''. This is when i reply and say the following: The Islamic Creation story can be found generally in the Holy Qur’an and in further details in the Hadith,

Holy Qur’an: The final revelation of almighty God which was revealed to Prophet Muhammed, the last prophet of God to mankind. The Holy Quran is written in Arabic directly dictated to the prophet.
The eloquence of the Qur’an is far above the level at the time, testifying to its divine nature.
Unfortunately, we will need to use English translations in this presentation.

Hadith: Sayings of the holy prophet Muhammed and his infallible progeny, who are his successors.

Creation in the Holy Quran:
[32:4] Allah is He Who created the heavens and the earth and what is between them in six periods, and He mounted the throne (of authority)…


[41:9] Say: What do you indeed disbelieve in Him Who created the earth in two periods, and do you set up equals with Him? That is the Lord of the Worlds.[41:10] And He made in it mountains above its surface, and He blessed therein and made therein its foods, in four periods: alike for the seekers.[41:11] Then He directed Himself to the heaven and it is a vapor, so He said to it and to the earth: Come both, willingly or unwillingly. They both said: We come willingly.[41:12] So He ordained them seven heavens in two periods, and revealed in every heaven its affair; and We adorned the lower heaven with brilliant stars and (made it) to guard; that is the decree of the Mighty, the Knowing.


[21:30] Do not those who disbelieve see that the heavens and the earth were closed up, but We have opened them; and We have made of water everything living, will they not then believe?

Creation in Hadith:
Jàbir ibn ‘Abdillàh (one of the companions of prophet Muhammed) said: I said to the Apostle of Allàh: ‘What was the first thing which Allàh created?’
He said: ‘The light of your prophet, O Jàbir! Allàh created it, then created from it every good;
then He caused it to stand before Him in the station of “nearness”, so long as Allàh wished. Then He divided it into parts; and He created the Throne from one part, and the Chair from another part, and the bearers of the Throne and the occupiers of the Chair from yet another part;
and He placed the fourth part in the station of love, as long as Allàh wished. Then He divided it into parts; and He created the Pen from one part, and the Tablet from another part, and the Garden from yet another part;
and He placed the fourth part in the station of fear, as long as Allah wished. Then He divided it into portions, and He created the angels from one portion, and the sun from another portion, and the moon from yet another portion,
and He placed the fourth portion in the station of hope, as long as Allâh wished. Then He divided it into portions, and He created the understanding from one portion, and the knowledge and forbearance from another portion,
and the (divine) protection and help from yet other portion, and He placed the fourth portion in the station of modesty as long as Allâh wished. Then He looked at it with awe-inspiring eye,
and that Light started perspiring, and one hundred and twenty-four thousand drops dropped from it; and Allah created from each drop the soul of a prophet and apostle.
Then the souls of the prophets began breathing, and Allah created from their breasts the souls of (His) friends and the martyrs and the good ones.' "

Qur’an is in harmony with Scientific Explanation of the material world.
The Theory:
- Universe began with a flash of light (Big Bang). Qur’an & Hadith agree that light is primary. The primary light is called the Light of Prophet Muhammed.
- The light is made of photons and other elements.
- Neutrons, protons, and electrons were made from photons, quarks, and particules.
- Elements are made of neutrons, protons, and electrons.
- The rest of the material world is created from the elements.

Rational Explanation
- The self sufficient is the one who is able to give to the needy and not vice versa.
- An explosion should be a source of disorder, not a source of order.
- Universe shows order, then there must be a source of order.
- The source of order is the primary light that God has created.
- Eventually, since God is the creator of the primary light then He is the ultimate source of order.
This is when you object obviously and then state different things after not proving the Quran wrong and misconcepting the Quran.

 

[Augustus]

Hamza supported their miracle claims in public, and often, until over time his numerous public debates added up to he was shown to be wrong. So he did not reject these views until it was an embarrassing to embrace these views. He still argued embryology for years after the event with Myers. Hamza is dishonest.

He's an absolute buffoon. His articles on the linguistic miracles are genuinely hilarious in their speciousness, especially seeing as he can't really speak Arabic.

But if a total clown can realise how wrong he is, then it pisses on the 'scientifically miraculous' chips even more.

 

[Jabar]

@Augustus You agree that these are mistakes of modern interpretation. So there is no error in the Quran. Then what do you object? Do not judge a human being based on the experiences he has been through, ok. Just because he can realise how wrong he is does not make the the science evidences does not make the miracles less more bad. Haha, watch your word selection because i find the way you word things are offensive.

 

[Shad]

@Shad Firstly, Allah describes the heavens as various different things. In this verse: And it is We Who have constructed the heaven with might, and verily, it is We Who are steadily expanding it. (Qur'an, 51:47)

Expanding is a later injection and does not mean currently expanding. This translation was done after the BB model was made. Before it was just vast with zero emphasis on anything taking place now.

He is referring to the space. The Arabic word "moosiaaoona" in the term "inna lamoosiaaoona," translated into English as "it is We Who are steadily expanding it", comes from the verb "evsea," meaning "to expand." The prefix "la" emphasises the following name or title and adds a sense of "to a great extent." This expression therefore means "We expand the sky or the universe to a great extent." This is the very conclusion that science has reached today. 1

No it means vast and widen. It never states the event is happening now. The translation is ad hoc after the model was made thus fallacious.

If Allah is mentioning the universe then he has created it. Now you will say ''Oh but it does not say that Big Bang Theory created it which has been approved of in modern science''. This is when i reply and say the following: The Islamic Creation story can be found generally in the Holy Qur’an and in further details in the Hadith,

The BB does not match the verse in the Quran so the Quran is in error.

Holy Qur’an: The final revelation of almighty God which was revealed to Prophet Muhammed, the last prophet of God to mankind. The Holy Quran is written in Arabic directly dictated to the prophet.
The eloquence of the Qur’an is far above the level at the time, testifying to its divine nature.
Unfortunately, we will need to use English translations in this presentation.

Presupposition only.

Hadith: Sayings of the holy prophet Muhammed and his infallible progeny, who are his successors.

Humans are fallible. By placing Mo as infallible you expose him criticism and open claims that he was a fraud since he made mistakes.

Creation in the Holy Quran:
[32:4] Allah is He Who created the heavens and the earth and what is between them in six periods, and He mounted the throne (of authority)…

Never happened in 6 days.

[41:9] Say: What do you indeed disbelieve in Him Who created the earth in two periods, and do you set up equals with Him? That is the Lord of the Worlds.[41:10] And He made in it mountains above its surface, and He blessed therein and made therein its foods, in four periods: alike for the seekers.[41:11] Then He directed Himself to the heaven and it is a vapor, so He said to it and to the earth: Come both, willingly or unwillingly. They both said: We come willingly.[41:12] So He ordained them seven heavens in two periods, and revealed in every heaven its affair; and We adorned the lower heaven with brilliant stars and (made it) to guard; that is the decree of the Mighty, the Knowing.

Empty rhetoric that says nothing of value.

[21:30] Do not those who disbelieve see that the heavens and the earth were closed up, but We have opened them; and We have made of water everything living, will they not then believe?

The verse is wrong hence why I do not believe.

Creation in Hadith:
Jàbir ibn ‘Abdillàh (one of the companions of prophet Muhammed) said: I said to the Apostle of Allàh: ‘What was the first thing which Allàh created?’
He said: ‘The light of your prophet, O Jàbir! Allàh created it, then created from it every good;
then He caused it to stand before Him in the station of “nearness”, so long as Allàh wished. Then He divided it into parts; and He created the Throne from one part, and the Chair from another part, and the bearers of the Throne and the occupiers of the Chair from yet another part;
and He placed the fourth part in the station of love, as long as Allàh wished. Then He divided it into parts; and He created the Pen from one part, and the Tablet from another part, and the Garden from yet another part;
and He placed the fourth part in the station of fear, as long as Allah wished. Then He divided it into portions, and He created the angels from one portion, and the sun from another portion, and the moon from yet another portion,
and He placed the fourth portion in the station of hope, as long as Allâh wished. Then He divided it into portions, and He created the understanding from one portion, and the knowledge and forbearance from another portion,
and the (divine) protection and help from yet other portion, and He placed the fourth portion in the station of modesty as long as Allâh wished. Then He looked at it with awe-inspiring eye,
and that Light started perspiring, and one hundred and twenty-four thousand drops dropped from it; and Allah created from each drop the soul of a prophet and apostle.
Then the souls of the prophets began breathing, and Allah created from their breasts the souls of (His) friends and the martyrs and the good ones.' "

Does not match any know scientific theory or even vague idea.

Qur’an is in harmony with Scientific Explanation of the material world.
The Theory:
- Universe began with a flash of light (Big Bang). Qur’an & Hadith agree that light is primary. The primary light is called the Light of Prophet Muhammed.
- The light is made of photons and other elements.
- Neutrons, protons, and electrons were made from photons, quarks, and particules.
- Elements are made of neutrons, protons, and electrons.
- The rest of the material world is created from the elements.

Are still wrong as pointed out previously. You are inject terms never mentioned in the Quran at all. Post hoc rationalization which is fallacious reaonsing

Rational Explanation
- The self sufficient is the one who is able to give to the needy and not vice versa.
- An explosion should be a source of disorder, not a source of order.
- Universe shows order, then there must be a source of order.
- The source of order is the primary light that God has created.
- Eventually, since God is the creator of the primary light then He is the ultimate source of order.
This is when you object obviously and then state different things after not proving the Quran wrong and misconcepting the Quran.

The rational explanation is the Quran is wrong. All your injects are ad hoc thus fallacious.

 

[Shad]

He's an absolute buffoon. His articles on the linguistic miracles are genuinely hilarious in their speciousness, especially seeing as he can't really speak Arabic.

But if a total clown can realise how wrong he is, then it pisses on the 'scientifically miraculous' chips even more.

He didn't admit he was wrong tho. He just said his method was. Read the whole article especially the embryology part in which he rehashes the same argument, which he claims to reject, again . He still brings up these scientific miracle and argues in support of these claims using a slightly altered method he just reject... Like I said he is dishonest.

 

[Augustus]

@Augustus You agree that these are mistakes of modern interpretation. So there is no error in the Quran. Then what do you object? Do not judge a human being based on the experiences he has been through, ok.

I have no interest in arguing that there are or if there are not any 'errors' in the Quran. Scripture is a different genre to textbooks.

I'm saying the 'scientific miracles' line of argument is silly. Seeing as the Quran never claims it contains scientific miracles then this is in no way problematic for Muslims.

There are no scientific miracles in the Quran, and this does not matter in any way to the Islamic faith and is in no way an argument against Islam. It simply is not relevant.

 

[paarsurrey]

You do realise that when you claim 'scientific miracles' you make the Quran far more open to errors.

Scientific ideas often change, and if you insist that a certain verse means 'miracle', then if the scientific view is later refined that you have just created an error. The people who claim these miracles are not scientists, but apologists. As such they frequently make mistakes with the 'science' part and end up looking foolish.

On the other hand, if you don't make any claims of miracles, you can simply treat the verse as being figurative scripture in which case there is no error. The Quran itself claims no scientific miracles, thats just something that some Muslims invented in the 1980s and was funded by the Saudis.

Actually, some apologists now reject the miracles hypothesis as it was causing people to apostatise when they found out it was false.

Since the eighties there has been a growing movement of Muslim academics and apologists using science to establish the miraculous and Divine nature of the Qur’ānic discourse. On a grass roots level, Muslims across the world, especially in the West, try to articulate the veracity of Islam by using verses that allude to science as evidence for the Qur’ān’s Divine authorship... Regrettably, the scientific miracles narrative has become an intellectual embarrassment for Muslim apologists, including myself. A few years ago I took some activists to Ireland to engage with the audience and speakers at the World Atheist Convention. Throughout the convention we had a stall outside the venue and as a result positively engaged with hundreds of atheists, including the popular atheist academics Professor P. Z. Myers and Professor Richard Dawkins. During our impromptu conversation with Professor Myers we ended up talking about God’s existence and the Divine nature of the Qur’ān. The topic of embryology came up, and Professor Myers being an expert in the field challenged our narrative. He claimed that the Qur’ān did not predate modern scientific conclusions in the field. As a result of posting the video[8] of the engagement on-line we faced a huge intellectual backlash. We received innumerable amounts of emails by Muslims and non-Muslims. The Muslims were confused and had doubts, and the non-Muslims were bemused with the whole approach... It is time more people from the Muslim community spoke out against this problematic approach to verifying the Divine nature of the Qur’ān. It has become an intellectual embarrassment for Muslim apologists and it has exposed the lack of coherence in the way they have formulated the argument. Significantly, many Muslims who converted to Islam due to the scientific miracles narrative, have left the religion due to encountering opposing arguments.

http://www.hamzatzortzis.com/essays...n-contain-scientific-miracles-a-new-approach/

I agree with what I have colored in magenta.
Thanks for the video, I agree most of its contents.
Regards

 

[Jabar]

@Shad This shows your arrogance. You make misconceptions and put translations in your perspective when you do not even understand Arabic or know the true meaning behind it. This then makes you believe the Quran had an error, i just gave you evidence while you still state your claims without evidence behind them. You are basically responding to my information by just simply saying no. You are being arrogant.

 

[Jabar]

@Shad You say ''All your injects are ad hoc thus fallacious''. I think you are just describing yourself.

 

[Shad]

@Shad This shows your arrogance. You make misconceptions and put translations in your perspective when you do not even understand Arabic or know the true meaning behind it. This then makes you believe the Quran had an error, i just gave you evidence while you still state your claims without evidence behind them. You are basically responding to my information by just simply saying no. You are being arrogant.

No I am showing I understand what smoke means, what the BB means while you have no idea at all.

When translations change to match current theories this demonstrates post hoc rationalization. I do not need to know Arabic. I can look up the words in a lexicon to see it does not mean expanding as a current process. I told you too look up the BB theory, you didn't. I give you a link to what smoke is, you ignored it. I provide evidence, you ignored it. Others provided evidence, you ignored them as well.

 

[Shad]

@Shad You say ''All your injects are ad hoc thus fallacious''. I think you are just describing yourself.

Nope. Since all your claims are based on modern views not traditional views this is the very definition of post hoc rationalization. Also you employ an ad hoc rescue by injecting views from external sources in to the Quran as if the Quran was talking about these view the whole time.

 

[Jabar]

@Shad How are they changed to demonstrate post hoc rationalization? I can see that you are big fan of using hoc a lot. Maybe the excessive world selection of hoc truly made you make a lot of misconceptions. I said: or know the true meaning behind it. Comprehend what i say before you make a judgement.

 

[Shad]

@Shad How are they changed to demonstrate post hoc rationalization? I can see that you are big fan of using hoc a lot. Maybe the excessive world selection of hoc truly made you make a lot of misconceptions. I said: or know the true meaning behind it. Comprehend what i say before you make a judgement.

Since previous translation never used expanding nor expander. Only until after the BB model was published does this change happen. Hence that is post hoc, changes after the fact. hoc is not the term, it is ad hoc or post hoc. Figure out what you are talking about before declaring anything about my points regarding your fallacious reasoning. I made a valid judgement, you just do not understand my points about fallacies in your reasoning.

 

[Augustus]

He didn't admit he was wrong tho. He just said his method was. Read the whole article especially the embryology part in which he rehashes the same argument, which he claims to reject, again . He still brings up these scientific miracle and argues in support of these claims using a slightly altered method he just reject... Like I said he is dishonest.

He said it was untenable, but perhaps, in theory, could be rearticulated on more solid ground although he lacked the ability to do so.

Also restating the 'miracles' as 'interesting observations' rather than bold claims. Sort of "The Quran is great for these reasons, and these scientific things are interesting, but we don't really rely on these".

It's an effort in qualification, but rejects the bold assertions of the traditional hypothesis.

He's a clown and a sophist who relies on other people's ignorance and credulity to people who throw around meaningless but superficially philosophical verbiage. That such a charlatan will no longer support the traditional miracles hypothesis speaks volumes for its intellectual vacuity though.