Questions about Al Quran
-
Peace,
The Quran contains no apparent nonsense and it is a very good Guide for living. Is that not enough reason to follow it without worrying about distortion?
I think questioning the integrity of Quran is like questioning God's capabilities. Can the Almighty not keep His own words intact for 1400 years if He so pleases? It is a bit insulting to Him, in my opinion.
And to closely compare hadith with His revelation is even more insulting. Some hadith might carry certain Truth, but it is no way near the pristine Quran.
Questioning the Quran is in my opinion as questioning your Faith. Had the Quran been in a fallible condition I would probably have been a Christian still. It was Quran that made me accept one step further on my Path and no one's opinion and I have yet not found any nonsense in it that was not cleared out one way or another being just misinterpretation. I really wonder were you find Quran inconsistent.
Okay. You wanted a way to prove that Quran is authentic. In my opinion, the Book itself is its own witness and God is a witness on top of that. If they want proof tell them like God said "The human being is the most argumentative type". What do they argue over, a divine revelation?
Say, are they truly believers? Not believing the Quran is a divine revelation and the Quran not to be the exact wordings of God Himself.
I have read sahih bukhari and most stuff is plain nonsense. How can someone even compare that to Quran?
God bless you
-
Understand If the Quran is from Allah (a perfect being) then the original/first Quran could not have mistakes from the beginning (Be imperfect). Because Allah (a perfect being) will only deliver a perfect scripture (with no mistakes). Therefore there is a correlation between preservation of the Quran and internal and external contradictions.
How? You just say this. And have not given any rational or logical proofs.
-
Peace,
The Quran contains no apparent nonsense and it is a very good Guide for living. Is that not enough reason to follow it without worrying about distortion?
I think questioning the integrity of Quran is like questioning God's capabilities. Can the Almighty not keep His own words intact for 1400 years if He so pleases? It is a bit insulting to Him, in my opinion.
And to closely compare hadith with His revelation is even more insulting. Some hadith might carry certain Truth, but it is no way near the pristine Quran.
Questioning the Quran is in my opinion as questioning your Faith. Had the Quran been in a fallible condition I would probably have been a Christian still. It was Quran that made me accept one step further on my Path and no one's opinion and I have yet not found any nonsense in it that was not cleared out one way or another being just misinterpretation. I really wonder were you find Quran inconsistent.
Okay. You wanted a way to prove that Quran is authentic. In my opinion, the Book itself is its own witness and God is a witness on top of that. If they want proof tell them like God said "The human being is the most argumentative type". What do they argue over, a divine revelation?
Say, are they truly believers? Not believing the Quran is a divine revelation and the Quran not to be the exact wordings of God Himself.
I have read sahih bukhari and most stuff is plain nonsense. How can someone even compare that to Quran?
God bless you
Man of Faith,
I don't think you have understood the objections raised by "Student of Allah" - it was a question of logic.
<hr>
"I have read sahih bukhari and most stuff is plain nonsense. How can someone even compare that to Quran?"
No one compares it to the Quran. However you make a bold claim. Care to substantiate?
-
Peace.
Supportpeacenotwar,I say I poor in english it doen't means I know nothing about english, if I know nothing then why I brothering myself for joining this forum .
I'm standard in vocabularies, but I just dead in listening and tense formulas (past tense, past perfect tense, etc), so I still understand ur post.And why you claim if my post is a counter-arguments, from very start I have not intention to create a counter argument against your post instead I just try to "answering" or "responding" your posts.
ExampleYour post like this
Maybe we can consider all of this in relation to how human memory works and what we would expect if we asked many to memorize a text like the Quran in a foreign language.
If Arabic itself is easy to memorise, then what's the miracle/sign? That means any Arabic text could be preserved the way the Quran has been through memorisation.
I already told you twice that I don't think its just because the Quran is in Arabic that makes it preserved. I think its because the Quran is divine in origin, because its a revelation.
So that's why I posting the reply about the miracles about Quran like easy to memorize cause good structural Arabic etc, so my replies is to confirm or just for reminding to your post, it's the one which anwered your post about Quranic preserved.I'm not see any contradixt between our posts but you're the one who rell yourself like a tire brickwall handshake peace.
You also wrote if you still confused about Quran's divine origin, so that's why I answer your post like this
Something special and divine origin? then I ask you, you reject hadith entirelly/fully or not?Do you believe on sira' of Muhammad?
My post is to make clear if you're reject hadith fully or not?Because the hadith or another narrations contains some historical tracks about Quran's origin, you believe that history or not, it's not problems.
In my opinion if we reject hadith fully, it's some kind of faulty because some important histories written on that even it already distorted -
Peace Earthdom,
I wish to politely bow out of our discussion. I am having trouble reading your post, and I have not said that you know nothing about English, I have not implied it and I have not suggested anything in relation to your English language skills.
I feel this discussion will not get further than what we've already discussed.
I think there is some truth to some hadiths, but its not for me to say what you should believe or for you to say what I should believe. I have clarified about 4 or 5 times now my view that the Quran is preserved. If you have any more problems with understanding this, then I have explained it as far as I can now.
Please can you respect my wishes.
Peace peace
-
How? You just say this. And have not given any rational or logical proofs.
Are you implying that we have no evidence or proof that Allah is perfect?
If your answer is yes to this question then you should ponder on this truth
"Since Allah's creation is perfect (Flawless/Without mistakes) then this means that Allah is perfect."
-
Are you implying that there are no for evidences or proofs that Allah is perfect?
If your answer is yes to this question then you should ponder on this truth
"Since the Allah's creation is perfect (Flawless/Without mistakes) then this means that Allah is perfect."
Mario,
I don't think there is any point into answering any further. It seems, you have not made any effort to understand what was put to you.
This too is fallacious logic
"Since the Allah's creation is perfect (Flawless/Without mistakes) then this means that Allah is perfect."
-
Mario,
I don't think there is any point into answering any further. It seems, you have not made any effort to understand what was put to you.
This too is fallacious logic
"Since Allah's creation is perfect (Flawless/Without mistakes) then this means that Allah is perfect."
Can you show me which logical fallacy this is? Just saying that something is a logical fallacy doesn't make it a logical fallacy. You must have an argument that can support your claim.
-
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.
For this I give you the link http//zilzaal.blogspot.com/2012/08/bumi-itu-datar-menurut-al-quran.html
Just google translate it if you don't know the language.Or rather that It's good explanation from Quran Reformist Translation
Is the Earth Flat?
The Quranic description of the earth, the solar system, the cosmos and the origin of the universe is
centuries ahead of the time of its first revelation. For instance, the Quran, delivered in the seventh
century C.E., states or implies that
? Time is relative (704; 2247).
? God created the universe from nothing (2117).
? The earth and heavenly bodies were once a single point and they were separated from each
other by an explosion (2130).
? The universe is continuously expanding (5147).
? The universe was created in six days (stages) and the conditions that made life possible on
earth took place in the last four stages (5038; 4110).
? The stage before the creation of the earth is described as a gas nebula (4111).
? Planet earth is floating in an orbit (2788; 2133).
? The earth is round like an egg (1024; 395; 7930).
? Earth's atmosphere acts like a protective shield for the living creatures (2132).
? Wind also pollinates plants (1522).
? The creation of living creatures follows an evolutionary system (1528-29; 2445; 327-9;
7114-7).
? The earliest biological creatures were incubated inside flexible layers of clay (1526).
? The stages of human development in the womb are detailed (2314).
? Our biological life span is coded in our genes (3511).
? Photosynthesis is a recreation of energy stored through chlorophyll (3677-81).
? The atomic number, atomic weight and isotopes of Iron are specified (5725).
? Atoms of elements found on earth contain a maximum of seven energy layers (6512).
? The sound and vision of water and the action of eating dates (which contain oxytocin) reduce
labor pains (1924-25).
? There is life (not necessarily intelligent) beyond earth (4229).
? The word Sabbath (seventh day) occurs exactly 7 times.
34
? The number of months in a year is stated as 12, and the word Month (shahr) occurs exactly
twelve times.
? The number of days in a year is not stated, but the word Day (yawm) occurs exactly 365
times.
? A prophetic mathematical structure based on the number 19 implied in chapter 74 of the
Quran was discovered in 1974 by the aid of computer shows that the Quran is embedded
with an interlocking extraordinary mathematical system (I have written several Turkish and
yet-to-be-published English books on this subject).
And there's more ? much more. Many of the signs/miracles mentioned in the Quran, for instance,
represent the ultimate goals of science and technology. The Quran relates that matter (but not humans)
can be transported at the speed of light (2730-40); that smell can be transported to remote places
(1294); that extensive communication with animals is possible (2716-17); that sleep, in certain
conditions, can slow down metabolism and increase life span (1825); and that the vision of blind
people can be restored (349).
Does it make sense, then, that a book that displays such astonishing knowledge of the physical
universe would declare that the earth is flat?
As for the shape of the earth, Yusuf Ali extends, Pickthall spreads, and Shakir expands. Other
traditional translations are essentially no different. They extend, expand, or spread the earth.
!!! Disputed passage Traditional translations extend and spread the egg-shaped earth.And the earth afterwards, he made it round likemegg. (7930)(Reformist Translation)
DISCUSSION OF 7930
Almost all English translations of the Quran mistranslate the word DaHY, a word that is still used for
"egg" among Arabic-speaking populations in North Africa. Why? The answer can be found in the
footnotes of some classic commentaries of the Quran, which were written centuries ago.
Early commentators and translators of the verse were stuck on the word DaHY, since it means (as we
have translated) egg. In the verse it is used as a transitive verb with the third person pronoun Ha,
which means "made it round like egg" or literally "egged it." But, the commentators thought that the
earth was flat!
Since they knew God's word could not contain errors or contradiction, they assumed their
understanding of the verse must have been wrong. Thus, they tried to interpret the description. They
argued that the word DaHY (egg) must have implied maDHY (nest), and inferred that God meant
"nest" by the word "egg." Therefore, the earth is extended like a nest.
Early commentators had an excuse for reaching such a conclusion, since they did not know that the
earth was spherical and slightly distended (like an egg); however, modern commentators of the Quran
have no excuse to parrot this medieval misunderstanding. They should have known that the verse
means what it says the earth is shaped like an egg. The external physical appearance of planet earth is
like an egg, and its cross-section displays geological layers similar to egg. Not only is the earth eggshaped
and resembles an egg regarding its layers, but so is its orbit around the sun. In fact, this is
Kepler?s famous First Law of Planetary Motion the orbit of a planet about a star is an ellipse, as
opposed to a perfect circle. -
I wish to politely bow out of our discussion. I am having trouble reading your post, and I have not said that you know nothing about English, I have not implied it and I have not suggested anything in relation to your English language skills.
I never mad against you.I say about my english just for clarification and I always polite especially to someone like you who was far away from me.This forum is my second experience for doing discussion with foreigner, the first time is when I get english course years ago and my teacher is also from foreigner too like from Wales (but I forget his name).
Oke back to the topic, originally what do you want to ask?what do you want to clarificaton?
You say multiple times if the Quran is preserved then that;'s why I answered you by writinh about Quran arabic's miracles, because it's the one of the ways of the Quran to be preserved -
dscsd;lvsdvsv[
-
Shalom Aleikhem Mario
Salam Student of Allah
Don't be an argumentative kind of philosopher P
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.
Thank you for not calling me names and thank you for not calling me "dishonest" just because I am trying to actually validate my beliefs and asking for the validations of your beliefs.
Below I will break down everything you said and try to communicate my problems with what you stated.
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."
I have no idea why you would say that. Did I ever say that? I can't recall asserting that majority believing in something makes it right or even wrong. The truth of a claim is independent of the number of people that believes or disbelieves in it. It is known as a logical fallacy "Argumentum ad Populum". I understand that very well, infact I will quote one of my posts in this forum for that, please read the following old post
Shalom Aleikhem,
Majority/Minorty opinion has nothing to do with the validity of a claim. Any argument which tries to justify it by saying things like "many/most people believe so" is a logical fallacy. It is known as "Argumentum ad Populum". Even though it is supposed to be easily understandable, many do however fall into this logical fallacy far more often than I would think they would. Even if everyone on this planet "believed" we are biological beings, that fact can not be used as evidence to justify the belief itself. The claim that we are biological beings should be demonstrable with reason/evidence/proof.
Now let us go to 6116
6116 And if you obey most of those on the earth they will lead you away from the path of God; that is because they follow conjecture, and that is because they only guess.
The ayaat does not state that majority = wrong on everything because its the popular/majority view/opinion. That is a gross misinterpretation. The verse comes in 2 parts
Part 1 And if you obey most of those on the earth they will lead you away from the path of God;
Part 2 that is because they follow conjecture, and that is because they only guess.Part 1 states that following most of those on earth is a bad idea. However, the reasoning is given in Part 2. Part 2 justifies what was said in Part 1 not by saying that it is because they are the majority view but by reasoning that they are views based on conjecture and guess-works.
I am a bit confused about you and your friend. In the beginning of the story, your friend was commiting the logical fallacy of Argumentum ad Populum. But as the story develops, it seems that it was you who was doing that too. Confused !! Anyways, here is my take on your friend's thought experiment
Experiment 'If you say that the majority is right when it doesn't have proof, then lets say if the majority says that men should randomly **** women, and provide the proof that men feel excited by looking at women, does that mean they are right in this case? As they proved proof right?'
Criticism
"If you say that the majority is right when it doesn't have proof"
I do not say that majority or minority or SpongeBob or anyone is right until they can demonstrate that their claim is valid. So, the very "Premise" of the entire argument/experiment is something which I do not agree with. Now you may be wondering why then I even bothered to write. Well let me tell you why. This is what your friend says later
"lets say if the majority says that men should randomly **** women, and provide the proof that men feel excited by looking at women, does that mean they are right in this case? As they proved proof right?"
What he is saying there is that
Majority opinion = Rape is ok
Evidence = Men are sexually attracted to womenI really don't follow his/her logic. Even if the majority opinion was that Rape is ok, how does sexual attraction on itself be used as justification for Rape ? That isnt a proof by any definition. Its like me stealing food and saying, "there is biological proof that I can be hungry, therefore getting my food by stealing is justified". That is absurd kind of reasoning. If you apply 6116 to this, you will notice that PART 2 of the ayaat actually stops people from doing such illogical things. Because there is no evidence to support/justify "Rape" based simply on the fact that "I am attracted". That would be conjecture and guessworks at its best !!
Before I end my post, I would like to remind you again that in 6114, the reasoning given for misleading is not their numbers but their methodology.
I hope that old post is sufficient to demonstrate that I know what I am talking about here. I never said what you just stated, I am confused as to why you would even say that.
Since there is a creation, then this means that there must be a creator.
This does not make sense. Don't get me wrong, of course I get that if there was a creation, there will be a creator. I am not questioning that kind of reasoning. What I am questioning is your "presuppositions". You are assuming a lot of things there. First of all, you are assuming that "creation" happened. You can't just state that the universe was "created". You have to demonstrate it. However, even creation does not necessarily lead you to a "God". At best, what you can say is that the "creation" is the effect and some "creator" caused it. It tells you nothing about the creator itself. This creator can be anything. We would have no clue. Why would I jump to a conclusion that this is a being, let alone the being that you worship?
You can also think about it in another way. When you see a river, do you say "Since there is a river, there must be a River-er" ? or something like "Since there is a River, I am justified in assuming that there must be a being who makes rivers in his/her spare time?". I hope not. I hope thats not your way of reasoning. All of these are big arguments from ignorance. In short, "just because we don't know how X happened, Y must have done it". That is flawed reasoning.
To sum it all up, we have never witnessed a single case of "creation". Therefore one is not justified in assuming that the universe was "created", until they can demonstrate that it is the case. And by the way, when I am talking about creation, I am talking about the religious idea of creation where a "being" is creating things and one of which is the universe.
Since the creation is perfect (there is no flaws in its design) then this means that the creator (God) is perfect.
First of all, we have no idea if creation took place. To make things worse, all the evidence we have points to the opposite direction. But lets ignore that for now. Perfect creation does not necessarily mean that the creator is perfect. You have to demonstrate that. You can't just assert that. We have never tested and confirmed the abilities and characteristics of a creator to know if what you are saying is true. You just "believe" that that is the case. And no, your belief alone doesn't suffice. When you make such a claim, the burden of proof is on you and you must demonstrate the validity of your claim.
Now, what is more interesting is that you are asserting that creation is perfect. By what standards are you judging? What you have said is extremely subjective. How do we find out if its perfect or imperfect. Who is the one that should set the standards? You can't just call something PERFECT and then use that as the premise for your conclusion when there is no way to agree on that premise. If I said that Michael Jackson's music is PERFECT, therefore Michael Jackson is PERFECT himself. Do you think that is objective and people would agree with me? I hope not. Me just stating that his music is PERFECT does not make it so. On top of that, his music being perfect does not automatically make him perfect. There is no logical connection between them. And you still need to find out a way to demonstrate that "creation" 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.
We have no way of knowing that. First of all ,people don't even agree on "perfection". How would you actually test this claim? You need to summon your perfect being, then you need everyone to agree on what "perfection" is and then ask your being to create a "perfect" thing. Until the day you actually do that, your sentence is empty of any real meaning or validity. By the way, you are assuming that there is "a God" and that god is "Allah" and "Allah is perfect". Without testing and confirming, there is no reason why someone else should just believe in that.
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.
I have explained this before, you are still committing the same fallacies as I have pointed out earlier. You are assuming that there is a God, you are assuming that that God is Allah, you are assuming that Allah is perfect, you are assuming that Qur'an is Allah's words. Using all of that, you are concluding that therefore Qur'an is perfect too. I know how this may satisfy you but this is no way to discern the truth of a matter. Otherwise, I could make the following assumptions and conclusions
- There is a God
- That God is Zeus
- Zeus is perfect
Conclusion The word of Zeus must be perfect
Does that prove anything to you???? I am sure that you wouldn't just start believing in greek mythology because of what I just stated above. Ask yourself "why" you wont believe that. I am using exactly the same kind of reasoning you are. In fact, anyone can make these assumptions and end up with whatever conclusion they desire. What you are doing and the example I gave are internally logically consistent, however, the premises(assumptions) are not "valid/verified" therefore the conclusions can never be trusted. Here are two example
Premise 1 - All Muslims are terrorists
Premise 2 - You are a Muslim
Conclusion You are a terroristThe argument presented above is logically consistent. The logic is flawless. However, we know that this is not true. So we have to recognize that there is a problem there in the argument. The problem is that we fed "baseless/untested/unverified" things into our Premise 1. We stated without proving that all Muslims are terrorist, no wonder the end conclusion is baseless too. This is why you must be careful when constructing a logical argument. You have to make sure that your assumptions/premises are not something based on "faith"/"feelings" but reason/evidence. Below is another example
Premise 1 - All dogs die
Premise 2 - Michael Jackson died
Conclusion Michael Jackson was a dog.That argument is logically consistent. However, we know that it is wrong. Michael Jackson wasn't a dog. Its interesting how both of our premises are reasonable assumptions/assertions. All dogs do die and Michael Jackson is dead. However, we know for a fact that he wasn't a dog. Do you see the problem now? The conclusion does not necessarily follow. You have to demonstrate that Michael Jackson was a dog. You have to verify your conclusions with real world evidence. This example should help you understand why the two premises that "creation is perfect" and "God is the creator" does not automatically make God perfect. You still have to demonstrate that He is perfect. Same goes for the bulk of your other arguments. Without demonstrations, you might as well see the logical argument about Michael Jackson and conclude that he was a dog. I hope you won't do that. Why would you then be silly with the way of reasoning when we are talking about THE MOST important issue here?
In my last post, I claimed that Muhammed's Quran had no internal and external contridictions. I don't have to find Muhammeds Quran to prove this. Because if the Quran we have today has no internal and external contradictions, this proves that it has not been changed. Hence the original version (Muhammed's Quran) also had no internal and external contradictions. The only way you can invalidate the claim that Muhammeds Quran has been changed, is by finding internal and external contradictions in the Quran we have today.
http//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3b/Paris_Tuileries_Garden_Facepalm_statue.jpg/300px-Paris_Tuileries_Garden_Facepalm_statue.jpg
Mario!! Mario!! Mario ( stange how that reminds me of my childhood and Super Mario).
Have you not read my earlier post. I believe I have gone to extreme lengths with multiple examples to show to you why that you are saying is not only wrong, it is demonstrably wrong. I demonstrated with examples that what you stated is wrong. Please, go back and read that again. I don't know if you read that too quickly or what, but I am sure you did not get it. Please go back and read my response.
In my last post, I claimed that "Allah is the truth." There is no logical fallacy if the claim I made is true.
"IF" is the keyword there. It is not fallacious to say what you have said. But it is fallacious to base anything on "IF" as "IF" it isn't "IF" but "IS". Think about this statement "I claimed that I am God. There is no logical fallacy IF the claim I made is true."
Would you know assume that I, Student of Allah, is God and start worshiping me based on "IF" ? If not, why are you expecting me to assume your statement to be true without any shred of evidence what so ever. I am sure, if I claimed to be God, you would grill me for evidence. It is not fair that when it comes to your assumptions/beliefs you just "state" it and say "IF" and then you conclude that it is therefore true. By that way of reasoning, in the statement I wrote above, I have proven that I am God.
As you already know, if there is a creation there must be a creator. If there is no falsehood in the creation of the creator, then this means that his creation is true. This proves that Allah is the truth.
I crossed out the bit I already responded to earlier in this post.
Once again, you are basing things on "IF". Why should anyone care about your "IF"s? Why not think about other "IF"s? You just repeated that same irrational act of basing a conclusion entirely on "IF". You must first demonstrate that it is the case. You can't just say that "If my father was pregnant with me in his womb, then he must have given birth to me". You must show us why we are justified in buying your "IF". I know that it makes sense that if your father was indeed pregnant with you in his womb, it makes sense that he is the one that gave birth to you. But before anyone believes in that, you must first demonstrate with reason and evidence that it is the case.
Because only a God that is the truth (truthful) can make a creation which is true (has no falsehood in it). That's why it can be qualified as evidence/proof. The only way you can invalidate this claim, is by finding falsehood in the creation of God. If you cant find any falsehood in the creation of God, then you can never invalidate the claim that Allah is the truth (truthful).
How do you know that? We have no way of validating your claim that a liar God could not possibly make a true creation. I am curious as to how you come up with these assertions. You need to demonstrate that this is true. You need to find truthful Gods and liar Gods and then ask them to make universes and then we can assess if your claim is true. One has to be at the height of arrogance to just make things up and claim they are true. I don't think you want to be that way.
And the underlined part is irrational. You are shifting the burden of proof. And why on earth anyone would take "Allah is the truth" as the default position? Take this example "I am claiming that I have an invisible pet dragon". Will you then now say that my claim is true unless someone can prove that I don't have a pet dragon? Will your default position be that "Student of Allah has an invisible pet dragon" ? I hope not. That makes no sense. Same goes for the part I underlined in your quote. Nobody must have the default position that "God is truth" until they can disprove that. It is the duty of the person that is claiming to demonstrate that their claim is true. It is not other people's duty to demonstrate that it isn't true. Otherwise, I invite you to disprove that I have an invisible pet dragon. This is shifting the burden of proof, it is irrational.
I think you misunderstood the concept of internal/external contradiction in relation to Quran and its being preserved. So I will formulate it in another way.
Since Al Quran, a scripture with more than 6200 verses, have no internal and no external contradictions, then this proves that this scripture has been preserved.
Since Al Quran, a scripture with more than 6200 verses, have no internal and no external contradictions, and therefore has been preserved, then this proves that this scripture is true.
http//allthingsd.com/files/2011/11/double_facepalm.png
I have gone to great lengths in showing you how that has no link with preservation. Please read my earlier posts again. I will try another simple example If I can show you copy of a huge book, like the oxford dictionary or encyclopedia Britannica which does not necessary contradict externally or internally. Will you automatically assume that the dictionary or the encyclopedia has never been altered? I don't think you will do that. Nobody would. Why then be so irrational when it comes to 6200+ verses of Al-Qur'an? There are many many books that are free from such contradictions, yet we know for a fact that the publishers/editors/authors have edited them. There are many books with multiple editions. None of which necessarily contradict internally or externally. But they add/subtract things in the new editions. So if you pick up the 5th edition of Book X, and find no such contradictions, will you automatically assume that "aha, this is a big book, no apparent contradictions, it must be the original edition". I am sure you will never assume that. So please, do not make the same bizarre claim when it comes to Qur'an just because it has 6200 verses.
The only way you can invalidate the claims I made in the sentences marked in blue above, is by proving that there are internal and external contradictions in Al Quran. If you can't prove that there are internal and external contradictions in Al Quran, then you will never be able to disprove the claims I made in the two sentences above.
I am afraid no, that is not the case. I have already given the dictionary example, encyclopedia example and the Book X with multiple edition examples. They are sufficient to show you that your assumption is not based on reason and can and was demonstrated to be false. And once again, near the end of the quote, you resorted yet again to illogical statement. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. I will accept that your claim is true that day you accept that I have an invisible pet dragon based on the fact that you can't possibly disprove that.
Can you show me which logical fallacy this is? Just saying that something is a logical fallacy doesn't make it a logical fallacy. You must have an argument that can support your claim.
Although this question was not for me but for The_Chimp, let me point out that I have explained that in this post. But of course Chimp can speak for him/herself. I think I have already done that work for him by responding to your post.
Have a nice day, may peace be with you.
--------------------------------------------------- Student of Allah
-
Shalom Aleikhem Mario,
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
Peace
------------ Student of AllahSalaamun alayka SoA,
I have a problem with Altered 3, are blue and red not contradicting each other?
Unless you mean with "I am not a golfer" "I am not a proffesional golfer" or something like that.In general I agree with your post.
Salaam,
Bender -
Assalam O Alaikum,
"The Prophet (Choicest blessing and peace be upon him) Said, The best among you (Muslims) are those who learn The Quran
and teach it."
Www.SchoolQuran.com is the best Quran Learning for Kids Platform for people living at distances facing problems to get a reliable source for their Islamic Education. We
provide services for Basic Learn Quran with Tajweed, Memorization of Quran, Hadith
Course and Memorization of Salah and Islamic Dua?s according to Quran and Sunnah of
Hazrat Muhammad (Choicest blessing and peace be upon him). We have experienced, committed, motivated and professional
online tutors available for students of all ages.
Regards,
Www.SchoolQuran.com -
Peace,
So SoA makes it clear that Quran cannot be proved if it is authentic. Then it comes down to intuition when deciding whether the Quran is authentic or not.
Of course, with the before-mentioned logic most of the past history is almost impossible to verify.
As earlier threads I have participated in we concluded that God cannot be verified either and it comes down to one's logical conclusions about the cause of existence. I guess, God did intentionally not make it too easy for people or everyone would believe, even those who do not deserve it.
Despite the uncertainty I believe the Quran is actually the words of God. That it would cause human disputes is pretty obvious. But that sectarian people came up with the claim that the Quran is corrupted puzzled me. I thought they would defend it. But of course, they have their hadith...
Hypothetically, if God says something is preserved, then it is preserved, because God can do anything. Of course, now we now that we cannot scientifically prove neither God nor Quran, so it again comes down to Faith based on inspiration and intuition.
The best attempt to prove Quran is code 19, but it seems too inconsistent and people do not believe in it. Of course, the code is enough for me, but that is a another story...
God bless you
-
Shalom Aleikhem Bender,
I have a problem with Altered 3, are blue and red not contradicting each other?
Unless you mean with "I am not a golfer" "I am not a proffesional golfer" or something like that.In general I agree with your post.
Ya Bender, if anyone ever asks why I love you, it is because of this. Thanks for pointing out the mistake. I forgot to check that 3rd sentence with the first one and make sure they don't contradict. As you may have noticed, I have given a lot of my time in writing these posts. I was not merely arguing, I was actually trying really hard to get my point across. I am a human being, so I will make mistakes. You are an awesome kid and thanks for pointing that out. Now the question is, can a moderator edit that part for me and replace that with another sentence? I do not want the readers to think of me as a complete retard P .
I will try and contact a mod and see if they can help with that. Oh, and thank you for taking the time to read that.
May peace be with you
--------------------------------- Student of Allah
-
Peace brothers and sister
In a Quran alone discussion in a traditional islamic forum, one member claims that Al Quran has not been preserved. It seems that he suggests that Al Quran can't be used as evidence or proof for something since it has been altered/changed, and that Al Quran therefore has no more validity than Hadith. But as far as I know, the Quran has been preserved because it has been memorized. On the other hand, Hadith has not been memorized just like the Quran and therefore its preservation is questionable.
According to history, we know that most hadiths have been fabricated and falsely attributed to Prophet Muhammed. We also know that most Hadith collections don't contain the Prophets original words and deeds. "The Scholar Daniel Brown adresses this important fact in his book "Rethinking Tradition in Modern Islamic Thought."
A member in the traditional islamic forum seems to suggest that it can't be proved that Al Quran has been memorized or preserved. As we know, Al Quran tells us that it has been preserved (see verse 159). But if we say that Al Quran has been preserved just because it says that it has been preserved, then we are resorting to circular reasoning. Therefore I want to know if there are any evidences that suggests that Al Quran has been preserved. I haven't studied the history of Al Quran in detail. Hence my knowledge its accuracy (from a historical perspective) is limited.
I have two questions that are related to the things I wrote above. I hope that the brothers and sisters who are knowledgeable when it comes to the historical accuracy of Al Quran, can answer these questions. My questions are the following
Can we prove (through historical sources) that Al Quran has been preserved?
Can we prove (through historical sources) that Al Quran has been memorized?We are only to be held accountable to what we have possession of and what has been handed down to us. We are not responsible for more than that. As the Quran says about the previous scriptures being what the Jews have possession of or what is in their hands and said the same about the gospel.
Let the People of the Gospel judge by what God hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what God hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel. (Surah 5, Maida, verse 47)
But why do they come to thee for decision, when they have (their own) Law before them?- Therein is the (plain) command of God; yet even after that, they would turn away. For they are not (really) people of faith. (Surah 5, Maida, verse 43)
2.41 And believe in what I reveal, confirming the revelation which is with you, and be not the first to reject Faith therein, nor sell My Signs for a small price; and fear Me, and Me alone.
2.89 And when there comes to them a Book from God, confirming what is with them,- although from of old they had prayed for victory against those without Faith,- when there comes to them that which they (should) have recognized, they refuse to believe in it but the curse of Allah is on those without Faith.
2.91 When it is said to them, ?Believe in what God Hath sent down, ?they say, ?We believe in what was sent down to us? yet they reject all besides, even if it be Truth confirming what is with them. Say ?Why then have ye slain the prophets of Allah in times gone by, if ye did indeed believe??
So we are only to concern ourselves with what we have with us.
-
We are only to be held accountable to what we have possession of and what has been handed down to us. We are not responsible for more than that.
1736 -
Pursue not that whereof thou hast no knowledge. Lo! the hearing and the sight and the heart's urge] - all of these will be questioned of.
-
1736 -
Pursue not that whereof thou hast no knowledge. Lo! the hearing and the sight and the heart's urge] - all of these will be questioned of.
Exactly! Whether the Quran is exactly how it originally came down or not is not something we can verify. We can only look at what we have possession of. In the end its about faith and guidance is from God. The Quran is a sign among many signs of God. Many early believers in Mecca believed in the Quran when most of it never came down yet and many died with very few of the Quran having been revealed at the time. Moses had signs given to him by God and so did Abraham and so did Jesus. There are many signs God uses but in the end these signs will be believed by those God wish to guide and others will be blind to them. Moses confronted Pharaoh with two signs and later there where other signs. Pharaoh was not confronted with scriptures as the Old Testament was not formulated at that time. Not all prophets came with scriptures as we know is the case with Joseph and Jesus but later authorities wrote down their lives and biographies and teachings. Jesus talked only about the OT as the Gospel was not formulated as such.
Often Sunnis will try to trap Quranist by asking them how do you know the Quran is complete and it is authentic without hadiths etc. But in the end we are not historians to answer that. God will only judge us by what we have possession of and how we respond to that. Faith is an internal issue rather than an external issue.