Discrepancies in the Quran
-
You already admitted that a word for word quote isn't needed when you tried to twist your way out of the first discrepancy on this thread!!
But to try to twist your way out of this discrepancy you say that because they are NOT word for word, than they are different questions.
Albiion,
Are you using the common psychological tools of manipulating peoples opinion? The guilt by association principle. If you have any proofs that I have twisted these then please submit your proofs.
Any rational person will see that you can not know this, yet you are stating it as a matter of certainty. Do you always state uncertainties with this sort of certainty??
Your charge is easily defeated, since it is an admission that you can not prove that the occassions were one occassion and the account varied. You failed to prove this, and anyone will see that you have not done this. So please focus on the topic and stop speculating on my motives.
I dont need to because all 3 verses say 3 DIFFERENT periods of time, hence the contradiction!!
You are not dealing with 3 precise definitions of time, only the last verse gives this information.
5419 says the people of Aad were destroyed in 1 day
4116 says the people of Aad were destroyed in a few days
6907 says the people of Aad were destroyed in 8 daysAlready defeated this argument. In addition it is not 1 in 5419 not few in 4116.
5419 says ONE period of time
4116 say Days (Plural) 3 OR more periods of time
6907 says exactly 8 (Days) periods of timeThe condradiction is still there.
There is none since the first two did not give you a precise number. A contradiction should be precise.
-
Your charge is easily defeated, since it is an admission that you can not prove that the occassions were one occassion and the account varied.
That isn't my aim to prove that.. My reason for bringing this discrepancy to light is to show how you twist and turn to try to overcome the discrepancies.
You Apply one set of rules for the Allah/Iblis discrepancy (ie it is OK for a quote NOT to be word for word for the SAME Occasion) and Apply a different set of rules for the Lot discrepancy (ie A Quote Must be word for word to be the same occasion)
A Quote should be the same (word for word) when someone is quoted for it to be the same occasion, so there is only two possibilities
1.. They are DIFFERENT Occasions
2.. They are Contradictory Quotes
Now Keep these RULES in mind when you try to twist your way around the Allah/Iblis discrepancy
So far I have ONLY given you TWO of the occasions relating to the people of Lot in anticipation that you would try this trick. But in fact there are 3 contradictory Statements made by Lot and 3 contradictory responses from the people. The same as the 3 contradictory Questions that Allah asked Iblis and the 3 Contradictory Answers that Iblis gave.
But in your twisting and turning to say the 3 Allah/Iblis discrepancies are the SAME incident while the Lot incident is 2 different incidents, you overlooked the third Lot incident..
First Lots Challenge
0780 And Lut when he said to his people What! do you commit an indecency which any one in the world has not done before you?
2754 And Lut, when he said to his people What! do you commit indecency while you see?
2928 And Lut when he said to his people Most surely you are guilty of an indecency which none of the nations has ever done before you;
Next Lots Statement/Question
781 Most surely you come to males in lust besides females; nay you are an extravagant people.
2755 What! do you indeed approach men lustfully rather than women? Nay, you are a people who act ignorantly.
2929 What! do you come to the males and commit robbery on the highway, and you commit evil deeds in your assemblies?
Next the People Response
782 And the answer of his people was no other than that they said Turn them out of your town, surely they are a people who seek to purify
2756 But the answer of his people was no other except that they said Turn out Lut's followers from your town; surely they are a people who would keep pure!
2929 But nothing was the answer of his people except that they said Bring on us Allah's punishment, if you are one of the truthful.
So the people only gave ONE answer, but here we have 3 answers!!
There is a striking parallel between the discrepancies in the Allah/Iblis event and the Lot events where there are 3 questions asked and 3 answers given that are ALL different.
But in your twisting and turning, you say that the quotes in the Allah/Iblis event dont need to be "Word for Word" and is the SAME event, while in the Lot event you say they "MUST Be Word for Word" to be the same event therefore are different events...
Nice try but weak!!!!
So what is your new twist now that you know there are THREE versions of events for the Lot story...
Did Lot Ask the question 3 different times in 3 different ways, and the people Answered 3 different times in 3 different way ?
Tell us your new twist!!!
.....................................
And when you've finished twisting we can revisit the Allah/Iblis event to see how consistant you are. Because remember you said it is the same event
-
My reason for bringing this discrepancy to light is to show how you twist and turn to try to overcome the discrepancies.
Albion,
The topic here is the consistency of the quran I hope and NOT the consistency of my position.
If you are looking at me to be rigid and unbending with the foolish notion to exercise some sort of consistency to serve a false sense of credibility, I do not play that game. What you offensively label is what I call moving with the discussion to make progress. Whether you are prepared to counter is your problem. Otherwise, what is the purpose of a discussion at all?
The issue here is clear The story of Lut.
Can you show me that the same question was asked once and it received different answers at the same time at the same place? Yes or No?
If you can not prove that this was the one question and differing accounts at the same time and place then you have not shown anything.
Peace.
-
PEACE, SARA,
Good to hear from you; can't wait until you get involved again. Thanks for straightening this guy/gal out.
Are you talking about me? For your information, I learned of the argument by PB himself. He introduced me to it, helped me to understand it, and argue it.
Most pleased to have been a service.
It his purely his work, and is not plagiarized.
I hope I did not mislead you, if I did, I vehemently apologize. What I mean is this, this argument is the excellent work of Hamza Abdul Malik, who introduced it to me. I think he would be pleased though to know that we understand his argument and can apply it.
Hope you return so, peace.
PBM-
-
The Next Descrepancy is in 43 and 4129
In 43 it says you can marry up to 4 wives, but ONLY if you can be fair and just to them all..
But in 4129 it says you can NEVER be fair or deal equally among your wives NEVER
43 And if you fear that you cannot act equitably towards orphans, then marry such women as seem good to you, two and three and four; but if you fear that you will not do justice (between them), then (marry) only one or what your right hands possess; this is more proper, that you may not deviate from the right course..
4129 And you have it NOT in your power to do justice between wives, even though you may wish (it), but be not disinclined (from one) with total disinclination, so that you leave her as it were in suspense; and if you effect a reconciliation and guard (against evil), then surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
...
-
The Next descrepancy is in verse 7160 where the feminine plural is wrongly used to describe groups of people.
We divided them into twelve tribal communities
WaqattaAAnahumu ithnatay AAashrata asbatan omamanDue to the fact that it refers to a number of people it should be written in the masculine plural form
-
Dear Albion
In 43 it says you can marry up to 4 wives, but ONLY if you can be fair and just to them all..
But in 4129 it says you can NEVER be fair or deal equally among your wives NEVER
First of all you are commiting a logical fallecy, because you in your mind have assumed that there is contradiction in Quran, and you are basing your allegations on that.
Secondly the translations you have choosen are not the best ones, see the following
If you deem it best for the orphans, you may marry their mothers - you may marry two, three, or four. If you fear lest you become unfair, then you shall be content with only one, or with what you already have. Additionally, you are thus more likely to avoid financial hardship.
4128] If a woman senses oppression or desertion from her husband, the couple shall try to reconcile their differences, for conciliation is best for them. Selfishness is a human trait, and if you do good and lead a righteous life, GOD is fully Cognizant of everything you do.
You can never be equitable in dealing with more than one wife, no matter how hard you try. Therefore, do not be so biased as to leave one of them hanging (neither enjoying marriage, nor left to marry someone else). If you correct this situation and maintain righteousness, GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful.Thirdly you have not read the verses with understanding and just picked up one of the 100 times refuted allegation from the internet sites.
Now if you read the verse 43 carefully Allah is saying "If you fear lest you become unfair, then you shall be content with only one,...."
and in 4129 Allah is confirming what is being said in 43 "You can never be equitable in dealing with more than one wife, no matter how hard you try" Allah is confirming the human nature; in both the verses it is crystal clear that AllaH is putting an upper limit to the marriages unlike any other religous book and infact advocating one marriage.
If you read the first verse carefully; it is talking about the orphans, when in time of war many lives are lost mostly being man, the women are widowed and kids orphan, they had no other alternate to survive at that particular culture and time and to gain respectability other than to marry and this is logical, but making it a practice just for enjoyment or other purposes is discouraged by Allah in both the verses.
Therefore both the verses are in perfect harmony. ALLAh ho AKBAR.It is only the hate for muslims and Islam that has made them deaf dumb and blind.
-
That's the most dishonest translation I've seen. The word "Mother" doesn't even appear in that verse. All you've proved is that you need to falsify the translation in an attempt to overcome the contradiction.
You explained nothing. The Contradiction is still there, 4129 says you can NEVER be fair with nore than one wife.
ALLAh ho AKBAR
"ALLAh ho AKBAR" ?? .. What is that nonsense !!
-
Albion
That's the most dishonest translation I've seen. The word "Mother" doesn't even appear in that verse. All you've proved is that you need to falsify the translation in an attempt to overcome the contradiction.
Look who is talking about Honesty
Who has misquoted and presented the verses out of context. twistedYou would like to discuss the "mothers" or "wives" make it clear in your mind; first.
You explained nothing. The Contradiction is still there, 4129 says you can NEVER be fair with nore than one wife.
This is what he calls honesty????
I think I had explained bit more for a person of an average brain like you, so here it is specifically for you.
The verse 4129 says "You can never be fair with more than one wife"
The verse 43 "you fear lest you become unfair, then you shall be content with only one,......"
The verses are in perefect harmony and this fact has disturbed you, becuase you have never read it for yourself, you depended on Shamoun and others.
So bye bye Albion. Keep on babbling if you wish.ALLAH HO AKBAR
-
The Contradiction is still there, try again !!
....
-
The next discrepancy is in verse 569 where Sabeans is spelt Sabioon should be written Sabieen. The same phrase is repeated in 2217 where it is correctly written.
Wrong
0569 Inna allatheena amanoo waallatheena hadoo waalssabi-oona waalnnasara
0559 Lo! those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Sabaeans and the ChristiansRight
2217 Inna allatheena amanoo waallatheena hadoo waalssabi-eena waalnnasara
2217 Lo! those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Sabaeans and the Christians -
Do they not then meditate on the Quran? And if it were from any other than Allah, they would have found in it many a discrepancy
-
Albion
The new post of yours has forced me to change my opnion regarding you
I wrote in my previous post "you are an average brain", but actually you are below average.Now you come up with the allegations brought forward by Newton and his Muslim licker Mr. rafiq-ul-Haq; which again have been refuted 100 times by different Islamic scholars including
M AS Abdul Haleem
Moiz Amjad and many others.
Before I go in to detail I would like to share some of my practical experience.
On internet and live, often I come across having debates with different persons having different believes and religons, but one thing I found common in them is; When logically they feel loosing the debate, when their arguments become weak, they shift there cannons towards the grammatical and spelling mistakes in my wrtings and speach.
This fact alone is enough to explain how irritate they are when they find no errors in Quran and think by attacking grammar they can achieve some thing.The Qur'an being one of the major source materials of the grammarians' works can obviously not be judged on the basis of the grammarians' work. Trying to do so would actually be like trying to find faults in in the Universe on the basis of the books written by astronomers.
As is clear from the cited argument, newton has tried to establish that the two verses of the Qur'an 2 62 and 22 17, are themselves an evidence that the word in the above verse should have been "Saabi'iina" rather than "Saabi'uuna". The author, by quoting the two verses (2 62 and 22 17) has, at least, recognized the fact that whoever authored the Qur'an was not unaware of the "correct" declension of the word "saabi'uuna". However, even after recognizing this fact, the author finds no option but to term such a deviation, of even someone who is fully aware of the general rule as an "Error".
Thus, before and after 569 the importance of true belief and good deeds are stressed in spite of any straying, even by the sbi'n, those who return to true belief and good work shall not fear or grieve. The context of 262 and 2217 is quite different from this. Judging from the context of the situation, then, sbi'n in 569 could be said to require highlighting in the way suggested by Zamakhshar, Khall and Sbawaih even the Sbi'n will be forgiven if they believe. . . others will the more readily be forgiven, the Sbi'n being of all the categories listed the most clearly astray. According to this opinion, sbi'n has been singled out by a shift in the case marker for special effect. In this case it would not differ from 2177 and 4162, both of which had been understood as iltift.
For a detailed answer please click on to following link
http//www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Grammar/iltifaat.html
Albion you are just exposing yourself.
ALLAH HO AKBAR
-
I see know one has yet put forward any logical explaination for any of the discrepancies posted so far.
The Next Discrepancy is found in verse 6612 where the masculine phrase "breathed in HIM" is attributed to Mary. Many of the translators have seen the problem and tried to cover it up by changing it to "breathed into HER". Only one translator from those listed below (Sher Ali) was honest enough to quote it correctly as "breathed into HIM"....
Khalifa
6612 "Also Mary, the Amramite. She maintained her chastity, then we blew into HER from our spirit"Shakir
6612 "And Marium, the daughter of Imran, who guarded her chastity, so We breathed into HER of Our inspiration"Sher Ali
6612 "And sets forth as an example Mary, the daughter of Imr?n, who guarded her chastity - so WE breathed into HIM of Our Spirit"Yusuf Ali
6612 "And Mary the daughter of 'Imran, who guarded her chastity; and We breathed into (HER body) of Our spirit"Notice Yusuf Ali saw the problem and tried to overcome it with a bit of trickery and changed it to (her body) in brackets..
Because the words used are Masculine there are two possible variants of the phrase
- "breathed into IT"
- "breathed into HIM"
But "breathed into HER" is out of the question because the words are not feminine.
The translators have seen the problem with "breathed inti IT" and the discrepancy it would cause so ALL have avoided translating the phrase that way.
The translator have also seen the problem with translating it as "breathed into HIM" and have tried various tactics and twisting of the verse to overcome the problem. Only a very few honest translators are game enough to traslate the phrase in the Masluline the way it reads in Arabic..
-
Since Albion doesnot understand logic and is here Just to play the old game, therefore it is over for him.
The Next Discrepancy is found in verse 6612 where the masculine phrase "breathed in HIM" is attributed to Mary.
So could the life be breathed in to some one who is alive????
off course the life was breathed into "Jesus" who was to be born and I guess he was a man!
The life was breathed in to "Jesus" who was "him" and was in the body of "Marry" who was "her". -
You obviously don't know Arabic otherwise you wouldn't be making so many basic mistake ....
"fanafakhna" (breathed into HIM/IT) can ONLY refer to a word that came before it. So the "Him" can ONLY refer back to Mary. Unless "fanafakhna" is translated as "breathed into IT", in which case it refers back to "farja" which is Maries private parts.
Wamaryama ibnata AAimrana allatee ahsanat farjaha fanafakhna
Even ALL the translators new that one roll
Nice try, but try again...
.......
-
There seems no need
True there is no need because not even translators who know Arabic well could overcome the discrepancy without changing the Arabic text. The best they could do was to try the magic trick of replacing "breathed into Him/It" with "breathed into Her".
First you tried the tricky of adding the words "their Mothers" to 43 when no such words appear in the Arabic text.
f you deem it best for the orphans, you may marry their mothers "
Then you ignore all Arabic Grammar rules to try and overcome the discrepancy in 6612...
The discrepancy is still there and will remain, along with all the others..