Contradictions and inconsistencies in the quran?
-
Peace cavemandoctor. I assumed that many of the members already knew the verse numbers or,can quote them.( i havent got the time to find them all.) i thought the contradictions i posted were self-explanatory (and many were not addressed,as danish pointed out.) ,but if the inconsistency is not clear to you,then i will clarify upon your request...
Peace enquirer. You see, it's not just about knowing the verse number. How you translate/interpret the verse is key to whether there is a contradiction (in a sense, this is the point you've made all along). This is why posters continually ask you to say why you think it's a contradiction. And to say you haven't got the time to find them all is intellectually lazy. You have time to participate in a 25 page thread but you don't have the time to post your translation of the verses and go through them and analyze them? Do you see why posters get frustrated? We don't ask you to post your translation/thoughts just to harass you; we ask you because we want to know what your understanding of the verses are so that we can approach the discussion in that vein, and to see if we can then clarify things for you. Far from this being an attempt to force or compel our beliefs on you, instead we are trying to find out exactly what your thoughts are so that we can provide a counteranalysis. I suspect this is why many in here say you lack a deep understanding of these alleged contradictions. They're not assuming; rather, they're going by the depth of analysis, or lack thereof, you provide in these very debates.
I'm not trying to be mean but it often seems like you're playing the game, but with different rules. A basket for you is worth 10 points; for others, 2 points. Others aren't allowed to travel or double-dribble; you on the other hand can, and if someone points this out to you, you accuse them of compulsion or of being defensive. I hope I'm being clear; basketball is the best analogy I can come up with. D
I ignored some posters because they were rude,or continually seemed not to read my posts properly,and got emotional...if you noticed with the poster who was civil and not emotional ( poster openmind.) I tried to respond slowly,and form a dialogue and discussion,going through the points step by step and answering his questions...
I agree that there are some who are rude in here. I know you are mostly referring to mquran and AhmedBagat here. I totally agree that some in here use methods that arent altogether effective and have tones that should be eschewed. For that, and for them, I apologize. Personally though, I do not think mquran is rude at all. I find him to be simply direct and a no-nonsense intellectual. I can relate to his frustration with those who, like I said above, like to play by different rules. Note I am not saying I don't accept different views or don't like discussing different views; far from it. What I don't like is someone who simply plays by different rules. We can have different understandings/beliefs/philosophies but we must approach a debate in an objective and logical way. Claim-Response-Counterresponse, etc. After all, this is why we are here.
Finally, to be sure, yes you responded to OpenMind but only after he posted 3 times repeatedly asking you to acknowledge him. Should it really take posters begging you to acknowledge them in a debate? Surely you can appreciate how that is unhealthy and unproductive. Ultimately, it is very frustrating and it gives people the impression that you think you are in some way superior. Please don't think I am attacking you here; I am merely pointing out how you come across to many. I am actually trying to help you.
I did not make assuptions about the forum members..I know the general views of a lot of the members here,and i always clarified 'some' members believe in some verses literally,not all..so i did not generalise.
I was not just saying dont take the whole quran literally,i was saying if you take many of the verses literally then the book becomes inconsistent and contradictory...And that is not a straw-man argument.Fair enough. If you didn't say there are some who take the Qur'an 100% literally, then I apologize. I thought you said that; maybe I'm mistaken.
I notice that many think that they can question a persons intellectual integrity,or honesty just on the basis of a few posts,and without taking into account the circumstances/context of the posts,the posters actual real view-point,or the negative manners of some of the posters responding to their posts....
You dont know anyone that believes in literal handchopping,lashes,physical angels,sticks into snakes etc? (i didnt just say the allah on a throne,in the sky,over the water verse.)... I could call that intellectually dis-honest...but i will not,as i will take into account that you are human,and i wont question your integrity and intentions...
peace all.To be fair, this is an assumption you have made. I have not simply read a few posts. I have read many, many posts of yours. I took circumstances/context into account and I have tried hard to understand your real viewpoint.
And when did I say I don't know anyone who believes in literal handchopping, lashes, physical angels, and sticks into snakes? You can't call me intellectually dishonest since I never said that. If you can point out where I said that, I will humbly apologize. I simply said that I don't know anyone who takes the Qur'an 100% literally. I gave the "Arsh" example to prove a point. No one I know takes that verse literally so, by extension, no one I know believes the Qur'an to be 100% literal. Where did I say no one believes in literal handchopping, lashes, etc.? Can I now call you intellectually dishonest?
Finally, I'd like to make a point about questioning intentions and integrity. This isn't just related to this forum but rather is inherent to all internet message boards. Often in debates, I'll see someone say "you don't know me and you dont know exactly what my thoughts are; don't assume." I find this to be a copout. It is true that we don't know everything about you. But, many of us have read many, many of your posts. You have shown what your beliefs are. Further, in this thread alone, you have proceeded to debate in a way that is not conducive to healthy discourse and understanding. This isn't us willy-nilly questioning your integrity. This is us simply reacting to you. Poster X casually mentions 10 contradictions, then posters Y and Z give responses to those claims, X ignores them, Y and Z ask X to acknowledge their responses and further debate, X then dismisses them. I can safely say poster X has been intellectually dishonest. What do I mean by intellectual dishonesty? I mean X is someone who is not really open-minded, someone who is not really interested in an open debate about the issues, someone who doesn't want to play by the rules but rather wants to make hit-and-run claims and either ignore or give knee-jerk reactions to posters who try to debate X. I can question X's integrity. Sure, I don't know everything there is to know about X but insofar as this particular debate goes, I can question his integrity. There is nothing wrong and presumptuous about that.
Peace.
-
I agree that there are some who are rude in here. I know you are mostly referring to mquran and AhmedBagat here. I totally agree that some in here use methods that arent altogether effective and have tones that should be eschewed. For that, and for them, I apologize. Personally though, I do not think mquran is rude at all. I find him to be simply direct and a no-nonsense intellectual. I can relate to his frustration with those who, like I said above, like to play by different rules. Note I am not saying I don't accept different views or don't like discussing different views; far from it. What I don't like is someone who simply plays by different rules. We can have different understandings/beliefs/philosophies but we must approach a debate in an objective and logical way. Claim-Response-Counterresponse, etc. After all, this is why we are here.
I found the above statement is nothing but crap to be honest
so what you are saying that you agree with this enemy of Islam that me and Mquran are rudes then you come and say thet you son't think that Mquran is rude, oh yeh Ahmed is,
look bro i warn you to talk ill about me again, because simply if you do again you have to carry the consequnces of your BS
Salam
-
I agree that there are some who are rude in here. I know you are mostly referring to mquran and AhmedBagat here. I totally agree that some in here use methods that arent altogether effective and have tones that should be eschewed. For that, and for them, I apologize. Personally though, I do not think mquran is rude at all. I find him to be simply direct and a no-nonsense intellectual. I can relate to his frustration with those who, like I said above, like to play by different rules. Note I am not saying I don't accept different views or don't like discussing different views; far from it. What I don't like is someone who simply plays by different rules. We can have different understandings/beliefs/philosophies but we must approach a debate in an objective and logical way. Claim-Response-Counterresponse, etc. After all, this is why we are here.
I found the above statement is nothing but crap to be honest
so what you are saying that you agree with this enemy of Islam that me and Mquran are rudes then you come and say thet you son't think that Mquran is rude, oh yeh Ahmed is,
look bro i warn you to talk ill about me again, because simply if you do again you have to carry the consequnces of your BS
Salam
Peace Ahmed. The above is exactly what I'm talking about. I have expressed my opinion and I am entitled to that. I value you as a member of this forum. You do have a lot of knowledge of the Qur'an and Arabic and I appreciate that. To be honest though, I think you tend to be abrasive and you engage in debating methods that leave a lot to be desired (this is my opinion). If I talk ill about you again, I "have to carry the consequences of my BS?" What kind of thinly veiled threat is that? Is this how the Qur'an tells us to act?
Sorry, I don't see the world in black and white like you do Ahmed. There are shades of grey. Just because I think you are rude doesn't mean I side with "an enemy of Islam." I am entitled to question enquirer's tone/methods as well as yours. Unlike you, I don't see everyone through the lens of believer/disbeliever. I look at the message and not the messenger.
Finally, even if you have such a huge problem with what I have said, are you really supposed to react that harshly/negatively? resort to threats?
4134 "Not equal are the good and the bad response. You shall resort to the one which is better. Thus, the one who used to be your enemy, may become your best friend."
Peace.
-
Peace Ahmed. The above is exactly what I'm talking about. I have expressed my opinion and I am entitled to that.
Hi and what i said above is exactly what I'm talking about and I'm entitled to defend myself against the pepetrators
I value you as a member of this forum.
accompanied with rudenss?, well thanks but you can keep your opinion about me to yourself
You do have a lot of knowledge of the Qur'an and Arabic and I appreciate that.
oh thanks but again if accompanied by rudness, i don't want this appreciation, i prefer that you ignore me better
To be honest though, I think you tend to be abrasive and you engage in debating methods that leave a lot to be desired (this is my opinion).
as i said many times, i'm here to debate, not to make friends, and sure i'm one hell of a debater, i'm not here to preach the Quran
If I talk ill about you again, I "have to carry the consequences of my BS?" What kind of thinly veiled threat is that? Is this how the Qur'an tells us to act?
Yeh I expected the weak will come and say are you threatening me?, lol this is funny indeed
my battle with the perpetrators will be the free mind battle field i. bloody e., it is not like I will strap a bomb on me and kill the both of us, but what i meant with the consequnces that I will hunt for your fallacies in here and expose it, something i'm not intersted to do really, it is up to you at the end of the day
Sorry, I don't see the world in black and white like you do Ahmed.
wrong guess
i see the world red and yellow not black and white
There are shades of grey.
I didn't see grey in the red and yellow but I saw orange
Just because I think you are rude doesn't mean I side with "an enemy of Islam."
fine and I'm sure that you are full of crap and non sense
I am entitled to question enquirer's tone/methods as well as yours.
but if you insult me then you have to carry the consequences
Unlike you, I don't see everyone through the lens of believer/disbeliever. I look at the message and not the messenger.
LOL, that was funny, thanks for the laugh especially the last bit about the message and messenger, it sounded very funny )
Finally, even if you have such a huge problem with what I have said, are you really supposed to react that harshly/negatively? resort to threats?
LOL, far out bro, are you on drugs or somethin?
it is like you are asking to insult others then asking them to defend themselves the way you want it, haha it seems you are high now
4134 "Not equal are the good and the bad response. You shall resort to the one which is better. Thus, the one who used to be your enemy, may become your best friend."
Peace.
why not implementing this verse yourself instead of calling me rude?
are you a clear cut hypocrite, or just hypocrite?
-
Peace Ahmed
Hopefully this bad blood between us settles and we can one day discuss things in a more fruitful manner. God knows best. Peace.
-
Peace darbari. Those are not contradictions?...ok.....if you want
to explain why these are not contradictions,im happy to listen to your account....I have now explained in detail in my posts why i dont agree with them,as they are inconsistent in the 'modern age' to always take literally,and they dont agree with my morality when taken literally...
And remind me of your explanations that you want me to address,please?This one http//www.free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=5550.msg82615#msg82615 ? the only one that I had explained .
-
Peace Ahmed
Hopefully this bad blood between us settles and we can one day discuss things in a more fruitful manner. God knows best. Peace.
Inshaallah
Thank you
-
Enquirer peace mquran. Ok,yes i find hand-chopping harmful in todays society,when jails, rehabilitation,social study etc.. is possible and available.(not that it was totally un-available in the past,necessarily.)
I see. So your criteria for the 'harmfulness' of hand-chopping is relative to what is being done TODAY. Can you please tell me, what is your criteria for your choosing 'jails, rehab, social study' etc ? Can you define a standard by which we can tell which response is most effective?
Yes,i do recognise the 'possibility' of quran being the word of god,i have clarified many times that if interpreted properly,it can be a great source/help in guidance...
Good. That's very open-minded of you
If it is to be regarded as guidance for 'all times',then the interpretations definately have to be updated and cater for the modern context.(with the literalism and previous translations,sometimes sorely lacking,and impractical,inhumane.)
Can you give me an example of this of how
- certain interpretations have worked in the past
- vis-a-vis (1) above, how this update can be made to take place.
Please give an example of 'lacking, impractical and humane' and name the criteria by which you have given your example.
I also dont believe its necessary for our salvation,as the universal laws are available elsewhere..(i know you havent claimed its necessary for salvation,im just clarifying a point.).
Universal laws , by which I understand as the eternal truths governing the being of humankind can be found through empirical observation as well as rational deduction. The problem I'm asserting to yourself and Danish are the limitations of such an epistemology (the parameters by which we accept something as 'information'.
I shall give you an example. During the Hobbesian period of political thought, it was thought that the White Man was superior to the Afro-man. The reason for this is that by observation, the White Man had colonised and enslaved the Black-man. No less than certain American presidents thought that the Afroman was only 3/5'ths human.
Consider this example above to be a hypothetical one for now (to avoid pedantic and distracting conversations about it). What can we deduce from the above
-
The formulation of natural universal law is limited by mankind's capacity to observe, namely the space-time limitation.
-
Mankind has always a tendency to be biased in his observation.
The afro-man could easily say, this is the universal law that the chosen ones of God have to suffer before achieving heavenly bliss. How are we to contradict him?
peace all ps;yes,its good to talk. pps; ive just read your last post...i can appreciate and tone down my tone when adressing peoples sensitive beliefs..you are right...i suggest you can do the same...
Suggestion accepted. I also suggest you concentrate on substantiation. Sorry if you take this offensively but it has to be said Sir, you have exhibited a lack of grounding in Quranic concepts. I say this without any malice. This in itself is not a bad thing. We can always learn when we don't know. It's when we think we know but we really don't, that's where the problems occur.
I am a human being like yourself. I have to consider my existential reality as a human being just like yourself when I adopt an ideology. I chose al-quraan not because it was my starting position (I am from a 'muslim' background) but because its concepts give the potential for me to elevate myself as a human being. If you believe this, then we have a basis for a productive discussion.
-
Elena I think that is impossible. How to reject what has been found true?
Do you mean 'ignore'?I don't mean 'ignore', no. I mean 'rejections' in the sense of 'concealment' (literally kufr). You recognise something is al-haqq (truth in the ultimate level) but choose to conceal it from your life.
-
Hello All
Let?s look at this alleged contradiction ?From memory? regarding Ad people and their prophet Hud
"Truly I fear for you the Penalty of a Great Day."
(135)
6- And the 'Ad, they were destroyed by a furious Wind, exceedingly violent;
7- He made it rage against them seven nights and eight days in succession so that thou couldst see the (whole) people lying prostrate in its (path), as they had been roots of hollow palm-trees tumbled down!
(6)
(7)Due to the fact that it was left for the Muslims on this web site to work out how it is a contradiction, I have to be fair, I have to try to work it out as if I?m smart then as if I?m dumb, now let me see how it is a contradiction under both possibilities
Possibility # 1 I?m smart
Hmmmmmm?..
?.
?.Well I see no contradiction whatsoever
Possibility # 2 I?m dumb
YES, THERE IS A CLEAR CUT CONTRADITION
26135 tells us that the punishment is one day
697 tells us that the punishment lasted 8 days and 7 nights
Ahmed says to himself
Excuse mister Dumb, I need to ask you the following question first
Why you are comparing Eggs with Potatoes?,
Allah is telling us in 26135 how prophet Hud warned his people, Prophet Hud told them , i.e. ? Truly I fear for you the Penalty of a Great Day.?, this can never mean how long that punishment will last, all he told them that he fears for them the Penalty of a Great Day, he never said how long the punishment is and surely the statement is open for any period that this punishment mentioned will last, as well the statement is open to highly consider that Hud was warning them about the Judgment Day, in fact the Judgment Day was called exactly as such ?Yawm Azeem? in the Quran, here is an example
Say "I would, if I disobeyed my Lord, indeed have fear of the penalty of a Great Day. "
(15)
-> See, the J D was called the same by Mohammad, in fact at least 4 times the J D was called as such, therefore we can?t take it conclusively as a day in their life back then, Yawm Azeem can easily mean the J D and still has nothing to do with how long the punishment of that day will last.
In 697, Allah is talking about totally something else, He is telling us how long that punishment lasted on them back then ?seven nights and eight days in succession?
Totally something else, it is like when you book a trip on any day for two weeks long holiday, i. dumb e. it will last 14 days and 13 nights depending on when you will check out, so can you compare the day when your trip starts with how long it will last?, I think you can if you are dumb, because in this case you are comparing Eggs with Potatoes and you are right they both are round and we have the word day in 26135 & 697
Slam dunk
Salam
-
Peace darbari,ab,cavemandoctor and mquran.
Mquran and ab,i will cease 'debating' with you two for my peace,your peace,and the forums peace. I dont feel much is being achieved in the way of 'peace'in our 'dialogues'... I will reply to points i disagree with from you two,but i will not enter into a dialogue...Take it easy.
darbari; i read the link you posted,to be honest you did not clarify to my satisfaction how those literal occurences (eg sticks into snakes,virgin births etc...)
can be verified....If you believe god does these 'miracles' now and then,thats fine...thats your opinion...I just wonder why these 'miracles do not seem to happen anymore?Cavemandoctor; I have tried to answer your first post,i dont feel we have to really 'debate' all the 'subjective' details any more,youre entitled to your opinion,as am i...Im sure we can discuss in future under better and more 'peaceful' circumstances,and without bad feelings...
Peace all. -
darbari; i read the link you posted,to be honest you did not clarify to my satisfaction how those literal occurences (eg sticks into snakes,virgin births etc...)
can be verified....If you believe god does these 'miracles' now and then,thats fine...thats your opinion...I just wonder why these 'miracles do not seem to happen anymore?what i showed u is that the verses are not in contradiction with EACH OTHER . so your claim ABOUT THOSE VERSES has been disproved . do u agree ?
-
Peace darbari...Ok to clarify,the verses seem inconsistent with reality because 'miracles' are unverifiable/unwitnessed by us,and do not occur in our current times... The interpretation of verses that you stated in your post is fine for you..im not disputing that... And yes im not saying every verse you posted is always contradictory with another,nor am i saying that all of the quran is always contradictory. I was not referring to your specific interpretation of 'sunnah' of allah being contradictory,i was referring to a specific intepretation from a 'quran only' scholar.(parveez type.)....My main point has been that some verses when taken literally are inconsistent with other verses.(and reality,common sense,and science.)
If we are to have a decent,peaceful,beneficial dialogue please dont treat this as a ; 'my interpretation is 'correct' type exercise',or as an insulting attack on your beliefs,....i myself can make verses stop contradicting if i interpret them 'symbolically' or use a different translation/linguistic analysis of the arabic words...My point has always been you have to re-interpret and symbolise some verses for todays age otherwise they are contradictory...Hope that clarifies my viewpoint...
peace all. -
peace.
Peace darbari...Ok to clarify,the verses seem inconsistent with reality because 'miracles' are unverifiable/unwitnessed by us,and do not occur in our current times... The interpretation of verses that you stated in your post is fine for you..im not disputing that... And yes im not saying every verse you posted is always contradictory with another,nor am i saying that all of the quran is always contradictory.
So u now agree that those verses do not contradict EACH OTHER ? please be more straightforward .
I was not referring to your specific interpretation of 'sunnah' of allah being contradictory,i was referring to a specific intepretation from a 'quran only' scholar.(parveez type.)....
you never mentioned Pervez before ?! is his interpretation correct ? can u tell us please ?
-
Peace darbari. If you re-read my previous post it contains the answers to your current post...The interpretation from the 'parveez' methodology (also some on this forum share this same understanding too.) was that the phrase 'allahs sunnat' referred to allahs laws never changing,and so this meant that all the virgin births,fire not burning abraham,sticks into snakes,sea parting with a staff,man in belly of whale etc... verses were taken 'metaphorically by this 'methodology' to prevent inconsistencies in understanding the text.
If you want to have a dialogue,then please address some of my questions i have given you in my most recent posts (about why these 'miracles' ,if literal, do not occur today,and can not be proven by science or verified etc..)...I was 'criticised' by many for not answering questions...So i am trying answer your questions...If the courtesy of answering is not re-paid,then i fell there is little point in having a dialogue?...I think thats fair?...
Peace all. -
Mquran and ab,i will cease 'debating' with you two for my peace,your peace,and the forums peace. I dont feel much is being achieved in the way of 'peace'in our 'dialogues'... I will reply to points i disagree with from you two,but i will not enter into a dialogue...Take it easy.
Hehe, I thought as much. Lote-tree, is this the limit of your capacities? You come here with that arrogant 'im too good for this book' demeanor of yours and field questions and when they are answered, you run away. Is this the 'being good' philosophy you were talking about, Lote-tree?
Cease debating? How can you cease what you never began?
Let me remind you of your claims
-
You claimed al-quraan is JUST self-referential. No proof.
-
You claimed al-quraan prescribes 80 lashes punishement for accusation. No proof.
-
You claimed to have read 'nearly' all of the posts of Shabbir, Parwez etc yet you don't even know of a topic which was PERENNIAL in Bazm forum for a long time. I didnt go for the hard questions pal, you trip at the easiest hurdle.
Face facts, you didn't do your research and now when your views are on the verge of being ripped open, you RUN again. There's no other word for it but shameful. Honestly, I expected better from one who has escaped the clutches of religion.
-
-
Peace,
Enquirer, why do you keep claiming you knwo the Quran, and keep making these dumb mistakes
virgin births,fire not burning abraham,sticks into snakes,sea parting with a staff,man in belly of whale etc
Nowhere it is mentioned in the Quran about strike the sea with your stick, nowhere does it mention Jonah ending up in a belly and so on. These are mostly not metaphorical or literal discussions, but what it realy says in Arabic. And the things like the virgin births and so on, we read with distorted glasses left over from the past, and approach it as it was a virgin birth, while the Quran doesn't say anything about it, only that mary was a chaste women, and if you look at how fire is used in the Quran, you can see automaticaly that is used metaphoricaly in almost every verse mentioned, so in this way it is not the discussion how we look at it, but at how the Quran looks at it. And the Arabic and the order of the verses shows those things are not said in the Quran. So this is not metaphorical issue, but a language one...
Peace
-
Enquirer, why do you keep claiming you knwo the Quran, and keep making these dumb mistakes
Arnold, don't expect anything else. This person who screams about God in his heart must be acting on his 'gods' command. His god tells him, lead people on, WASTE THEIR TIME and when they have pandered to your request, let them down. It's like Bush's God but somewhat less malevolent.
If he's still responding to you, Arnold, ask him where al-quraan enjoins interpretation by JUST self-reference. The man rants about 'literal' and 'metaphor' and doesn't even know what al-quraan says about it.