Questions about Al Quran

Student_of_Allah

Shalom Aleikhem Mario,

Salam Student of Allah

First you must know what I mean by the following concepts Internal (inner) and external (outer) contradictions.

I think it would be prudent if you can can explain what these concept are before we engage in a discussion about their relevance to the preservation of Al Quran. If you do not know what these concepts are and how they relate to reality, then it wouldn't be prudent to claim that a lack of internal and external contradictions don't prove that Al Quran has been preserved.

So here is my question to you

What are internal (inner) and external (outer) contradictions?

This is how I understood internal and external contradictions

Internal General contradictions within the Qur'an between its contents.
External Contradictions between the contents of the Qur'an and external sources

Example for the Internal one Lets say in one verse it says God is surely a man and in another part of the Qur'an it says that God is surely not a man.

Example for External one Lets say the Qur'an says that the earth is flat and we know from external sources that the earth isn't flat.

This is how I understand internal and external contradictions. And you are absolutely right that for a better and fruitful discussion we should make sure that we are talking about the same things here. So I will be waiting for your reply to know if you are talking about the same kind of things when you talk about internal and external contradictions.

Peace
----------- Student of Allah

unknownuser

Peace be upon you Student of Allah

Your understanding of internal and external contradictions in Al Quran is correct. By external sources I assume you mean Creation/Reality.

External Contradictions between Al Quran and Creation/Reality (Morality, Nature/Scientific facts etc.).

unknownuser

Shalom Aleikhem Mario,

For the following I will assume that there are no contradictions in Al-Qur'an. So that I have to write less

Regarding the highlighted red parts in the quote, can you please explain how that is true? Lets look at the first one. You are saying that the lack of internal/external contradictions proves that the content is intact. How is that valid? If I can point out to you 3 chapters from a book that do not contradict internally/externally, will you automatically assume that this book is intact in its entirety? I hope not. Now think about a book that contains contradictions. How does having contradictions prove that the book was not preserved? Lets say I write a book about Topic X with my limited knowledge. Due to my limited knowledge I make mistakes and introduce 10 contradictions in my book. Now in the future, you are reading my book. Just because you found contradictions, will you assume that the copy of the book you have is incomplete or changed/not preserved? I hope not. The point I am trying to make is that the lack of contradictions in no way validates the preservation of the contents. There is no logical link between them.

Secondly, you stated that this lack of contradiction proves that Al-Qur'an is true. How in the world does that make any sense? If a book does not contradict with itself, do you assume that whatever the book says is therefore true? I hope not. Think about the statement " I am Madam X. I am 40 years old. I have a million dollars in my bank account". There is nothing contradictory in that statement. But I don't think just because it does not contradict with itself, you will assume that its "true".

Anyways, feel free to explain if I misunderstood what you tried to say. Oh, and have fun.

Peace
------------- Student of Allah

Reasons why the Quran has been preserved

Allah is perfect. The content of the scripture of a perfect being is therefore perfect. In other words the content of the scripture of a perfect being will have no internal contradictions. Because if there were internal contradictions in the content of the scripture of Allah (a perfect being), then it would mean that Allah is imperfect. And that would be illogical. Since there are no internal contradictions in the Quran, this proves that the content of the Quran (the scripture) has been preserved. If its content had been altered/changed, then its content would become imperfect (have internal contradictions). But since there are no internal contradictions in the Quran, then this means that its content has been preserved. Since Allah is perfect, the original Quran, the one that was delivered to Muhammed, must also be perfect (have no internal contradictions). As I mentioned earlier, Allah is perfect. The content of the scripture of a perfect being is therefore perfect (has no internal contradictions). The Quran we have today has no internal contradictions. Since the original Quran, the one that was delivered to Muhammed, had no internal contradictions and the Quran we have today has no internal contradictions, this proves that their message is identical. In other words, the content of the Quran we have today, is identical to the content of the original Quran, the one that was delivered to Muhamed. This means that the content of the Quran we have today has not been changed/altered. Ergo it has been preserved.

Allah is perfect. The creation of a perfect being is therefore perfect (has no contradictions). The content of the scripture of a perfect being must also be perfect (have no contradictions). In other words the content of the Quran must be perfect (have no external contradictions). If the Quran (the word of God) does not contradict Creation (the work of God) then this means that the content of the Quran has been preserved. Because if the content of the Quran, the scripture of a perfect God, had changed, then it would become imperfect (have external contradictions). In other words, it would have contradicted creation/reality. But since the content of the Quran does not contradict creation/reality, then this means that its content has been preserved.

Reasons why the Quran is true

Allah is the truth. There is no falsehood associated to Allah. The creation of Allah is therefore true. That which is true exist. That which is false does not exist. For example dragons don't exist. Because dragons are fictional/false. On the other hand, everything that Allah has created is true. The creation of Allah contains no falsehood. Since the content of the Quran (the word of God) does not contradict creation (the work of God) this means that the content of the Quran contains no falsehood. Hence the content of the Quran is true.

Conclusion

Since there are no internal (inner) and no external (outer contradictions) in the Quran, this proves that the Quran has preserved its original content. And this proves that the Quran is true.

unknownuser

Ok, I understand that English is not your first language... but please also understand that it can be quite difficult to try to find different ways to explain the same thing. If you asked me what I meant or what I believed, it would have been easier... but you kept making a counter argument. I even asked you if you could just take a look over what I said to make sure you understand. So, as a suggestion, you could have asked a question like Do you believe that the Quran is preserved? Or do you believe in the miraculous nature of the Quran's Arabic text? I mean, that's a suggestion but it would really have cleared the confusion much earlier.

In terms of the hadith issue I said ''special and divine in origin" to describe the Quran in RESPONSE to the point about Arabic being an easy language to remember. You have to place that phrase in context.

I already replying your post in the context way. Ok i will quote all your posts in this tread which stated you still not believe the power of Quran's original arabic text.
Your post is like this.

If it is just that Arabic is an easy language in which to remember texts and so on, then there is nothing special about memorising the Quran. However, I think there is something special and divine in origin about the Quran.

That's why I answered Quran's miracle like the existence of Hafidz Quran.We can still depending hafidz Quran if the Mushaf is destroyed.Btw if the Mushaf is destroyed, Allah still has the original copies in His tablet called Lauhmafuz.

8521 No, it is a glorious Qur?an.
8522 In a tablet (Lauhmafud), preserved.

But if you still think if the translation is equal with the Original text, then it's totally wrong, I will show you another miracle

According by scientist if you recite or listening Quran reciting in Arab original text, it makes you calm, rileks (like doing yoga) and some health benefits.I'm not lie but just try it, if you stress, sick or something just try listen or reciting Quran.
Malaysian scientiest, bring some samples to did research.The sample is people who don't understant Quran's arabic or feel strange with it.The samples was ordered to listening two kinds of Arabic reciting, the one is Quran reciting and the other is another Arabic reciting.
But the miracle is the samples can divided for which Quranic reciting and which is not, despite they're know nothing about Arabic Quran.
The Arabic Quran can be used for remove black magic (sihr)or something like exorchism, expell djinn,.The popular one is called Ruqyah, the Ruqyah practicer always reciting

Watch about Ruqyah http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=umbnRTWaGNc
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kpBGjh-fiE
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgGzVwqWimw
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnbB7I0iHYY

etc

And, no, I do not follow Hadith, and I don't know why you would think I would because of that phrase... really... if you want to explain that to me, I'd be interested in knowing why you'd think that.

Yes I reject the hadith too as sources of Islamic laws, but I'm not reject it entirelly, If we reject hadith fully then how we know Nabi Muhammad and his Sahabat.

supportpeacenotwar

Earthdom,

I am truly mystified at your responses to me. I cannot even fathom where you are getting some of this from. When I said the point about Arabic language, I was responding to your point. I was not saying anything about a translation being equal to the original Arabic. I even explained to you what I meant by the bit in bold. I really have tried to patiently explain my position to you.

Then I asked you to explain why you were asking me about hadith based on the part you bolded and quoted. The same part you keep 'discussing'. I get the feeling this is not just about lack of English comprehension. Maybe that's just me, but thats the vibe I'm getting.

Here is a summary of my beliefs given that you don't seem to have understood, not that it really matters in the end what I believe because you will account to Allah for all you did, not what I did, remember?

I believe the original Arabic of the Quran has been preserved by Allah. I believe we might not know all the ways Allah swt preserves His revelation.

I believe the most important thing is serving Allah swt in the best way possible. I think there is something very wrong about this discussion and I am going to bow out.

I also think the way you are discussing, by insisting on presenting counter arguments, about points I have never said, is not a good way to have a discussion at all.

I realise that this post may come across annoyed, but I'm actually more surprised and I can see how ridiculous this 'discussion' is.

unknownuser

Then I asked you to explain why you were asking me about hadith based on the part you bolded and quoted. The same part you keep 'discussing'.

Because you say you reject hadith entirelly, so I anwered.The answer is above.

I believe the original Arabic of the Quran has been preserved by Allah. I believe we might not know all the ways Allah swt preserves His text.

Your point is similiar on your post in the past

If it is just that Arabic is an easy language in which to remember texts and so on, then there is nothing special about memorising the Quran. However, I think there is something special and divine in origin about the Quran.

So I answer your statement clearly, in my post above this.

I realise that this post may come across annoyed, but I'm actually more surprised and I can see how ridiculous this debate this.

Because my english is poor )

If I'm a english speaker, I will not do such kind like this and may easily to go straight point.

This is the my language list, I will listed from my first language

1)Indonesian
2)Ngoko Javanese
3)Kromo Javanese
4)English
4)German (I studied it during my high school, because it's one of the curriculum)
5)Arabic (for religion purpose only).

5 kind of language already stuck in my brain, I understand your position so you must understand me too

hawk99

Yes I reject the hadith too as sources of Islamic laws, but I'm not reject it entirelly, If we reject hadith fully then how we know Nabi Muhammad and his Sahabat.

Peace Earthdom,

What do we need to know from hadith about Nabi Muhammad and his Sahabat that
is not in Quran?

We have permitted the enemies of every prophet?human and jinn devils
to inspire in each other fancy words, in order to deceive. Had your Lord willed,
they would not have done it. You shall disregard them and their fabrications.

God Bless

peace

supportpeacenotwar

Peace Earthdom,

I already explained the part in bold. You did not include that explanation in your recent post to me, and you did not refer to it. Nowhere in that did I state that I reject hadith entirely. I did not talk about hadith, I talked about the Quran. If you think there is an implication in that bolded part about hadith, all I can say is I did not mean any implication at all and I asked you if you could explain how you came to that conclusion that I was talking about hadith.
I already said I understand that English is not your first language. I suggested what might help in this discussion, as you kept saying and referring to things I never said or didn't mean. But you decided to ignore that and continue. Then, I explained what I meant by the part in bold and you left this out of your post. This is simply impolite.
The reason I am saying I am surprised is not because I didn't know your English is poor, but because of the fact I explained the part in bold. That's the point you keep discussing, which I have already said. You decided to ignore that, left it out of your post and did not refer to it. So, what am I to conclude then from this discussion? And yes, I already know your English is poor.

I have tried to make my comments to the point, although I find that I have more to say so I tend to write more. The length of my post will also depend upon the points I am responding to. Anyone can take a look at the posts I've made to you on here to understand what I mean by that.

Then after all the explanation I have given to you, you didn't explain one point that I enquired about.

What does Allah swt guide us towards in situations like these? You to your way, me to mine.

unknownuser

Peace

What do we need to know from hadith about Nabi Muhammad and his Sahabat that
is not in Quran?

We have permitted the enemies of every prophet?human and jinn devils
to inspire in each other fancy words, in order to deceive. Had your Lord willed,
they would not have done it. You shall disregard them and their fabrications.

I know it too hawk99.

Yes I reject hadith, so that's why I joining this forum.But I reject hadith only because the hadith is not fit for source of the fiqh.But If you get debate with a non-Muslim, if they ask you "who is your prophet?, how the history of the Quran until it's in your hand?.Imposibble the Quran was sent down without any historical track.

Yes hadith is already distorted in the term of meaning because only delivered by oral transmission for many years, so it's very risk if we use it for source of Islamic laws.
But the hadith still contains historical records like what cultures of Arab at that time, what tool which used by Anshar for drink? who are the the sahabats?,
There is no single 100% perfect historical books, so the historical books still contains contradictions and some faulty and hadith was included in it.

So of course I wouldn't think the hadith can be preserved because they are in Arabic
However, I think there is something special and divine in origin about the Quran. Please read on to understand the point that I am explaining to you again.
So of course I wouldn't think the hadith can be preserved because they are in Arabic

This is your statement which you bold it.But I'm not see if my reply contradict with all of your statement, and so what?Can you give me example if my reply contradict to your statement?

I'm became suspicious to you.Are you a high schoolar, colleger, worker, lecturer, Phd,?

supportpeacenotwar

Peace Earthdom,

Why do I need to explain it? I've already explained a lot so far in this discussion, did that get us anywhere? I would not be re-explaining the same point in each post that I think the Quran is a Divine revelation if you were not telling me things like "Ok i will quote all your posts in this tread which stated you still not believe the power of Quran's original arabic text." If you think the Quran's Arabic is preserved and I think the Quran's Arabic is preserved and we both understand each other, then there is nothing to discuss.

The whole reason behind this debate was the point about the Quran's preservation. So... I explained many times I believe that the Quran's Arabic text is preserved.

Why is it that I have to answer and explain things to you, but when I asked one thing to be clarified you did not do that?

Anything I say is problematic... so how about I just stop responding to you? What is the reason for us to keep discussing when there are so many difficulities in communication here? You to your way, me to mine...

Man_of_Faith

Peace,

So sad when there is occurring unnecessarily heated discussions for nothing (

God bless you and may God help you calm down

supportpeacenotwar

Peace,

So sad when there is occurring unnecessarily heated discussions for nothing (

God bless you and may God help you calm down

Peace Man of Faith,

Please don't stay down about this.

God bless you for your compassion

The_Chimp

Earthdom,

I am truly mystified at your responses to me. I cannot even fathom where you are getting some of this from. When I said the point about Arabic language, I was responding to your point. I was not saying anything about a translation being equal to the original Arabic. I even explained to you what I meant by the bit in bold. I really have tried to patiently explain my position to you.

Then I asked you to explain why you were asking me about hadith based on the part you bolded and quoted. The same part you keep 'discussing'. I get the feeling this is not just about lack of English comprehension. Maybe that's just me, but thats the vibe I'm getting.

Here is a summary of my beliefs given that you don't seem to have understood, not that it really matters in the end what I believe because you will account to Allah for all you did, not what I did, remember?

I believe the original Arabic of the Quran has been preserved by Allah. I believe we might not know all the ways Allah swt preserves His revelation.

I believe the most important thing is serving Allah swt in the best way possible. I think there is something very wrong about this discussion and I am going to bow out.

I also think the way you are discussing, by insisting on presenting counter arguments, about points I have never said, is not a good way to have a discussion at all.

I realise that this post may come across annoyed, but I'm actually more surprised and I can see how ridiculous this 'discussion' is.

And just as you believe Arabic is preserved - OUTSIDE THE QURAN . . . so is its context and best understanding. Hadith. Hence why Sunni/Shia Madhab are built upon different grades of Hadith - equal value is not attached to them. And when it comes to codifying law, then measures are even more stringent. This is why most Muslims have always believed in Hadith. Not most - nearly all. So Allah has used his people to convey Arabic down to you - but you think these people were misguided? Sound logical? Of course not.

GODsubmitter

And the Jewish people claim that the Torah is preserved intact throughout the ages, but others say it is "corrupted"...

So it is always these say this and those say that...

Student_of_Allah

Shalom Aleikhem Mario,

Good to know that we have an agreement on the way we understand internal/external contradictions. However, I am having difficulties with your post, the other post. I should probably bring to your attention the first post in this thread. The author of the thread is talking about historical evidence. In other words, we have to be more objective. Our feelings or beliefs should be left aside when we try to prove the case that way. Because honestly, every believer believes in what he/she believes but that doesn't help "prove" the case. So I will point out the problems I had while going through your post.

Reasons why the Quran has been preserved

Allah is perfect. The content of the scripture of a perfect being is therefore perfect. In other words the content of the scripture of a perfect being will have no internal contradictions. Because if there were internal contradictions in the content of the scripture of Allah (a perfect being), then it would mean that Allah is imperfect.

This part adds nothing to the conversation. Because in that case you are committing a logical fallacy. Its like a very circular reasoning. It is known as "Begging the question. However, you are correct in saying that a "perfect" God would do "perfect" things. The problem is that not everyone in the world will start with the assumption that your God even exists, let alone be demonstrably perfect.

And that would be illogical. Since there are no internal contradictions in the Quran, this proves that the content of the Quran (the scripture) has been preserved.

No it doesn't prove that. I have already explained before why lack of contradiction does not automatically mean that the document was preserved. Let alone be "true". Imagine this situation. There were 150 chapters of the Qur'an. Only 114 chapters got to stay and the rest were burnt or whatever. You will still be left with the same Qur'an that you have now, won't you? Or imagine that Chapter 111 doesn't exist right now. How would you know that it "should" exists? If the Qur'an was like a story book and it ended suddenly, may be you could guess that probably the ending is missing. However, in this case, you have no idea. Or you can simply look at the million of "non-self contradictory" writings out there to know that a writing doesn't have to contradict with itself for it to be not preserved. Can you please explain how you jump from "no contradiction" to "proves that it was preserved"? There simply is no link between the two. If you don't believe me, just take this post of mine and change the contents. It is possible for you to change it without contradicting.

If its content had been altered/changed, then its content would become imperfect (have internal contradictions). But since there are no internal contradictions in the Quran, then this means that its content has been preserved.

Again, no. Have a look at these sentences

Original I am a golfer. I am married and have 2 kids. I am thinking about not playing golf anymore.
Altered 1(slight) I am a golfer. I am married and have 3 kids. I am thinking about not playing golf anymore.
Altered 2(moderate)I am a golfer. I am single and have no kids. I am thinking about not playing golf anymore.
Altered 3(extreme) I am not a golfer. I am single and have no kids. I am considering playing golf from now on.

So, from the original, I have produced 3 sample alterations. Can you please point out where in the alteration does the alteration self-contradict(internal contradiction). Alterations 1,2 & 3 are not self-contradictory. However, does this prove to you that they are "PRESERVED"? I hope not. There is the original line on top of them. I distorted them without introducing self-contradiction(internal contradictions). Below is another simple example

Original I am a golfer. I am married and have 2 kids. I am thinking about not playing golf anymore.
Altered I am married and have 2 kids. I am thinking about not playing golf anymore.

I have clearly altered the contents by getting rid of one sentence. But that did not make it self contradictory. Did it? Here is another example

Original I am a golfer. I am married and have 2 kids. I am thinking about not playing golf anymore.
Altered I am a golfer. I am married and have 2 kids. I am thinking about not playing gold anymore. I like watching comedy movies.

I added a line. Surely, I have altered the content again. Can you please show how did that make the sentences self contradictory(internal contradiction).

The point is, you can both add,subtract,swap contents without making the thing self-contradictory. So, I am more than willing to understand how you make that logical connection between "not-altered" and "preserved". Because by that standard, all of the altered lines I have provided should be labelled "preserved/ not altered" as they do not contradict internally.

Since Allah is perfect, the original Quran, the one that was delivered to Muhammed, must also be perfect (have no internal contradictions). As I mentioned earlier, Allah is perfect. The content of the scripture of a perfect being is therefore perfect (has no internal contradictions). The Quran we have today has no internal contradictions. Since the original Quran, the one that was delivered to Muhammed, had no internal contradictions and the Quran we have today has no internal contradictions, this proves that their message is identical. In other words, the content of the Quran we have today, is identical to the content of the original Quran, the one that was delivered to Muhamed. This means that the content of the Quran we have today has not been changed/altered. Ergo it has been preserved.

THE RED PART That is circular reasoning, begging the question fallacy again. Much like a Christian telling you that the Bible is the truth because God never lies and God said in the Bible that it is the truth. Will you accept that evidence? let alone calling it historical evidence.

THE BLUE PART Where did you even find the original quran of Muhammad to say that it has no internal contradiction. I am confused, do you have the Qur'an that Muhammad used? We don't have any such thing. Therefore, you are "assuming" that there was a "Muhammad", you are assuming that the man had a "Qur'an" and that Qur'an does not contradict with your version of it. First you have to go find Muhammad's Qur'an. Then you have to come back and compare that to your version of it. Then if you find no difference, you can say that it was not altered. Not before that. You can't just "assume" that have you had done that it would not contradict. I am curious, do you not know that we do not have those documents? I mean, I know many Muslims who doesn't know that's why I have to ask.

In other words the content of the Quran must be perfect (have no external contradictions). If the Quran (the word of God) does not contradict Creation (the work of God) then this means that the content of the Quran has been preserved. Because if the content of the Quran, the scripture of a perfect God, had changed, then it would become imperfect (have external contradictions). In other words, it would have contradicted creation/reality. But since the content of the Quran does not contradict creation/reality, then this means that its content has been preserved.

Thats not a reasonable thing to say. Read the sentences below

Original Sentence I woke up in the morning and ran out of my house to see that my car is missing.
Altered Sentence I woke up in the morning and made myself a cup of coffee.

None of them are self contradictory or externally contradictory. None of them are impossible in nature. Yet clearly, the second one is altered. What is more interesting is the claim to supernaturals found in the Qur'an. If you are looking for places where the document contradicts with "reality", you may check them out. But I am not concerned about discussing miracle claims in this post.

Reasons why the Quran is true

Allah is the truth. There is no falsehood associated to Allah. The creation of Allah is therefore true. That which is true exist. That which is false does not exist. For example dragons don't exist. Because dragons are fictional/false. On the other hand, everything that Allah has created is true. The creation of Allah contains no falsehood. Since the content of the Quran (the word of God) does not contradict creation (the work of God) this means that the content of the Quran contains no falsehood. Hence the content of the Quran is true.

First of all, I don't think one should be stating things that he/she has no knowledge about. Unless God gave you a list of beings that He created, I see no reason why I should accept your assertion that He didn't create dragons. But we can leave that aside.

This part of your post is filled with the same problem. Logical fallacy, Begging the Question. It is so circular and can not be taken seriously. I have stated it before, why this fallacy is ridiculous. How can you ever prove anything like this? A Mormon kid will assume the same that God is truthful, his words (Bible+Book of Mormon) is therefore thruthful. How in the world does that even qualify as "Evidence/Proof"? Let alone be called historical proof.

I just want you to know that I am not trying to be rude,mean or insulting or offending. I think I have gone to great lengths in pointing out why you are basing everything in fallacies. I have cited the type of fallacy that is most prevalent in your logic. I have even provided example of alterations to demonstrate that your thinking is "demonstrably wrong". And none of that have I done for fun or mischief. I hope you forgive me if you were offended as that was not my intent.

Peace
------------ Student of Allah

unknownuser

Shalom Aleikhem Mario,

Good to know that we have an agreement on the way we understand internal/external contradictions. However, I am having difficulties with your post, the other post. I should probably bring to your attention the first post in this thread. The author of the thread is talking about historical evidence. In other words, we have to be more objective. Our feelings or beliefs should be left aside when we try to prove the case that way. Because honestly, every believer believes in what he/she believes but that doesn't help "prove" the case. So I will point out the problems I had while going through your post.

This part adds nothing to the conversation. Because in that case you are committing a logical fallacy. Its like a very circular reasoning. It is known as "Begging the question. However, you are correct in saying that a "perfect" God would do "perfect" things. The problem is that not everyone in the world will start with the assumption that your God even exists, let alone be demonstrably perfect.

Salam Student of Allah

Don't be an argumentative kind of philosopher

Thanks for your post. I was just joking with you when I said don't be an argumentative kind of philosopher. I think it is good that you are skeptical and question things. Anyone who accepts anything blindly will end up as ignorant. So we have to be critical and question things if we want to find the truth.

I understand what you mean. But the fact that not everyone in the world assumes that God exists or is perfect does not invalidate the fact that God exists and is perfect. "Truth is not measured by the views of the majority." Since there is a creation, then this means that there must be a creator. Since the creation is perfect (there is no flaws in its design) then this means that the creator (God) is perfect. Because only a perfect being can make a perfect creation (there is no flaws in its design). That's why I said the following Allah is perfect. The content of the scripture of a perfect being is therefore perfect. In other words the content of the scripture of a perfect being will have no internal contradictions. Because if there were internal contradictions in the content of the scripture of Allah (a perfect being), then it would mean that Allah is imperfect.

No it doesn't prove that. I have already explained before why lack of contradiction does not automatically mean that the document was preserved. Let alone be "true". Imagine this situation. There were 150 chapters of the Qur'an. Only 114 chapters got to stay and the rest were burnt or whatever. You will still be left with the same Qur'an that you have now, won't you? Or imagine that Chapter 111 doesn't exist right now. How would you know that it "should" exists? If the Qur'an was like a story book and it ended suddenly, may be you could guess that probably the ending is missing. However, in this case, you have no idea. Or you can simply look at the million of "non-self contradictory" writings out there to know that a writing doesn't have to contradict with itself for it to be not preserved. Can you please explain how you jump from "no contradiction" to "proves that it was preserved"? There simply is no link between the two. If you don't believe me, just take this post of mine and change the contents. It is possible for you to change it without contradicting.

Again, no. Have a look at these sentences

Original I am a golfer. I am married and have 2 kids. I am thinking about not playing golf anymore.
Altered 1(slight) I am a golfer. I am married and have 3 kids. I am thinking about not playing golf anymore.
Altered 2(moderate)I am a golfer. I am single and have no kids. I am thinking about not playing golf anymore.
Altered 3(extreme) I am not a golfer. I am single and have no kids. I will never stop playing golf in my life.

So, from the original, I have produced 3 sample alterations. Can you please point out where in the alteration does the alteration self-contradict(internal contradiction). Alterations 1,2 & 3 are not self-contradictory. However, does this prove to you that they are "PRESERVED"? I hope not. There is the original line on top of them. I distorted them without introducing self-contradiction(internal contradictions). Below is another simple example

Original I am a golfer. I am married and have 2 kids. I am thinking about not playing golf anymore.
Altered I am married and have 2 kids. I am thinking about not playing gold anymore.