Statistical Miracles of the Noble Quran

Have you read the Noble Quran ?

  • Yes, I did

    Votes: 3 27.3%
  • No, I did not

    Votes: 7 63.6%
  • I would like to read it

    Votes: 1 9.1%

  • Total voters
    11
  • Poll closed .
Originally posted by everneo
Again, any traveller following silk route would know this. This need not be considered as a great revealation. atleast this is not one of core points of Quran.


It is not a great revelation, but it makes me feel good to know that I can read my complex Quran and be able to extract historic meaning, my interpretation my be right or wrong, and it has no bearing on the validity of the Quran, but it has a special value to me that can't be extrapolated to another soul. Anyways, if you follow my discussion with James closely, you'll notice that I was not the one that brought up the Alexander the Great Journey, or the miracles in the Quran topic, but it was James the brought up the out of context "the sun sets in a muddy spring" verse, to mock the Quran, so I merely clarified to him that he is ignorant and showed him one, maybe correct, maybe not, personal analysis and interpretation of the Sura. Which I personlly think is much more intelligent than anything he can come with. By the way, the Sura of the Cave is one of the most difficult Suras in the Quran, almost the equivalent of the revelations of Daniel.......And while Daniel's revelations may contain many miracles and future informations, they may appear to be the object of mockery to many.

Originally posted by everneo
Now, this is a problem. It seems using Quran and Allah is the best way to be protected by Muslims. irrespective of the validness.. do you see the irony.? proudsyrian might have done this out of enthusiasm, but some of the misguided islamists use this weakness of muslims for their own use. when is the ummah going to realise this, Flores.?

Using is not the intent of any belief system. I have no questions in my mind at the end of the day regarding any Sura, because the bottom line is that I believe in my creator and no Sura, proof, power in this world will change my stand of believeing in my one creator. The Quran is not something that I will use to my rescue, neither is the bible, or the dos and don't of some prophet. I don't forsee myself standing at a golden gate, blowing a horn and reciting majical password verse to enter. It's my core believe and understanding that I rely on. And to only god is my judgement.

My boss at work is a christian and he travels door to door handing a one way ticket to heaven booklet prepared by the church and full of bible verses. I pity these type of people, whether they happen to be christian or muslim. Do they seriously thing that their lives has simplified itself to a little booklet with a bunch of verses that they will use to recite infront of a golden gate, the equivalent of, open Sesame.....How so rediculous and a mockery to my god almighty.

People often percieve my lack of knowledge about heaven, hell, my own salvation, ect....as weakness. Chrisitans seem to think that they are saved already with their words, and that I'm not saved, just because I'd rather stay in my humble corner and say that I'm at the mercy of my god who may send me to hell or heaven as he please, and I can only run my best and wait for his judgement and mercy. I don't believe in religious shortcuts, easy paths, baptism, born again, ect, and that somehow protects me againest those that profit from human weakness and vulnerability by selling fake security. I believe that I'm weak, vulnerable, and is quite in the need for god's mercy, but no human have my medicine. I'm secure that my god is mercifull, compassionate, and just.

Forcing new meanings to the book to affirm my believe is not my style, because at the end of the day, god will judge me based on my understanding and not based on how I convinced others.. But also not saying a word while a book of quality is being mocked is equally not my style. That be Islam or christianity, Bible or Quran.

A true muslim, christian, or jew in my eyes in one that have found in his heart a special unique relationship with god that gave him/her peace to go on with their life do the right thing, live in a balance, and die knowing that it's not the end. The more the relationship is kept private, the more the Gem is protected, while the more others where allowed to touch it, the more it lost it's glitter. The concept of the Ummah as a bunch of muslims uniting as you percieve it is wrong. God never said that fellow muslims will form a motherhood to nations. God only said that believers in general will get to know each other and congregate. A congregation of muslims, christians, jews holding hands and setting their differences aside and humbling themselves under their one god is the real Ummah in my eyes. A bunch of muslim secularist, christian fundementalists, or jews are not an example of an Ummah.

Everneo, .........
BEFORE I'M A MUSLIM, I'M A BELIEVER.
BEFORE YOU'RE A CHRISTIAN, YOU'RE A BELIEVER
BEFORE THEY'RE JEWISH, THEY'RE BELIEVERS

God only distinguish between a believer verses a non believer. God's will doesn't encompass secular religions. We are all acting againest the will of god by secularizing. God's will didn't intent to create judiasm, christianity, or Islam. God sent Moses, Jesus, Mohammed, and others to those who disbelieved so that the prophets may show us the way to believing. God didn't send us cult leaders to form exclusive clubs and confuse nations to form separate Ummahs to fight, he only sent messangers and the source of the message is one....But we are greedy and not humble enough to see this, and would rather place ourselves and our pride before the will of our god.
 
Flores:

<i>You are so so so silly. Just view the current times all over the world and tell me who is ahead of everybody is it your silly England? Your brits are currently procrastinating and having their mid day nap thinking it's August 29th, while the chinease are getting up early to welcome August 30th. China is the first place that the sun of the new day touches and the Quran knows that, too bad you don't know that.</i>

Too bad you've never heard of New Zealand, if you want to run that argument. New Zealand, by the way, is not in China or Russia.

You do make me laugh.

<i>To you it's a very very recent concept, to god, he creates the sun, moon, and earth, he knows that china the place of the yellow river recieves the sun rays first.</i>

I would like to think that your God would be somewhat more sophisticated than you portray him to be. You should realise that making silly claims actually <b>weakens</b> the argument for converting to Islam rather than strengthening it. Smart people will see through silly claims. You'd be much better off highlighting all the correct things in the Qu'ran than in insisting that it is infallible. You're actually making it seem less valuable than it is.

<i>Proud Syrian is only familiar with the concept of accredited colleges. The university of Osama Bin Laden or the christian coalition can issue all the PHD's they wish and it is less worthy than an accredited kindergarden degree.</i>

Whatever. You won't find Dashti listed as a member of an accredited university for the very simple reason that <b>he is dead</b>, as I said before. Once again, you're making yourself look silly.

<i>Amen to you everneo. When us humans try to take a universal piece of writing that is designed to withstand the test of time and try to analyze it based on our limited understanding, then we are automatically running the risk of limiting the meaning of the passage to our current understanding....We will be in constant needing to adjust our analysis in the future to match future understanding. And there will always be people like James that feed on this human incompetance in understanding to show that the Quran is inaccurate.</i>

So, you're saying that the meaning of the Qu'ran is malleable, and subject to different interpretations? God should really have been clearer, shouldn't he?

BTW, I hope you realise that the Qu'ran is inherently ambiguous. All translations derived from certain accepted "readings" of the Qu'ran, because the original texts in Arabic do not record all aspects of the language as it would be spoken.

There are around 10 different, sanctioned, "readings" of the Qu'ran.

<i>It is not a great revelation, but it makes me feel good to know that I can read my complex Quran and be able to extract historic meaning, my interpretation my be right or wrong, and it has no bearing on the validity of the Quran, but it has a special value to me that can't be extrapolated to another soul.</i>

I'm glad it makes you feel good. At the same time, I'm disappointed that you're not interested in the truth, but only in what makes you happy.

<i>I have no questions in my mind at the end of the day regarding any Sura, because the bottom line is that I believe in my creator and no Sura, proof, power in this world will change my stand of believeing in my one creator.</i>

See, it <b>is</b> all about faith, after all.

<i>A true muslim, christian, or jew in my eyes in one that have found in his heart a special unique relationship with god that gave him/her peace to go on with their life do the right thing, live in a balance, and die knowing that it's not the end.</i>

There is nothing wrong with that.

<i>God only distinguish between a believer verses a non believer. God's will doesn't encompass secular religions.</i>

That's a pity. It also seems quite arbitrary and petty.

BTW, technically there's no such thing as a "secular religion".
 
Originally posted by one_raven

First of all your argument with Randalfo is silly at best.
You are both stating that the other is wrong and both telling each other to check for themselves, but neither of you are stating any sources of facts regarding some very simple things to prove, but expecting the other to do it.

"I'm right"
"No, you are stupid, you're wrong."
"Check your facts."
"No, you check YOUR facts."
It sounds like a couple of 4 year olds.

thanks for pointing out this little tit-for-tat we were having, but I will admitt that I do not feel like I need to be Proud_Syrian's teacher, he doesn't pay me enough for that.

also since he is on the web, I suspect that he has access to a browser, to check at least 2 little facts;
1) who was responsible for putting the Quran together? &
2) what year it was done in?


I don't think that's too much to ask for? I think the answer to those 2 questiions will prove that any so-called miracles in the Quran are artifacts of man, those that put it together, so any miracles came from the hands, the minds, the hearts of men

The following quote is from:

http://www.quran.org.uk/ieb_quran_elmasry.htm
"8. Less than twenty years after the Prophet's death (632) and during Uthman's caliphate (644- 56), the Koran was compiled, upon the instruction of the Prophet companion and Caliph Uthman, into one bounded standard book (Musshaf), hence the name Uthman's Musshaf. Uthman's Musshaf was reproduced into master copies and distributed to major Islamic centers of learning. An early version of Uthman's Musshaf is believed to be the one at the Islamic Museum of Tushkent, Uzbekistan.
Uthman ordered that all other versions of the Koran in part or in full, to be burnt. Burning was the common method used to dispose of holy writings. However it is possible that some of these early versions of the Koran survive till the present. "

The following quote is from:

http://i-cias.com/e.o/uthman.htm
"Uthman bni Affan
Arabic: cuthmân bni caffân
(c. 580-656) Third caliph of Islam 644-656.
Uthman is credited for having centralized the administration of the Muslim state, and it was during his reign that the compilation of the Koran was completed."

The following quote is from:

http://answering-islam.org/Hahn/uthman.htm
"Many Muslims claim that the Qur'an today is the precise reproduction of the Qur'an which God gave to Muhammad through the angel Jibril. Nothing added. Nothing subtracted. No differences at all! Some Muslims would add that Muhammad checked the Qur'an yearly. Before he died, he and Jibril finalized it by reviewing it twice. This and similar claims are intended to assure Muslims and others - that since the Qur'an is God's Word, therefore God has perfectly preserved it, and/or since God has perfectly preserved the Qur'an, therefore the Qur'an is God's Word."

If this claim is correct, how are we to account for the following hadith (tradition) found in the respected collection of Muslim traditions called Mishkat al-Masabih:

Ibn Abbas said he asked Uthman1 what had induced them to deal with al-Anfal2 which is one of the mathani3 and with Bara`a4 which is one with a hundred verses, joining them without writing the line containing "In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful," 5 and putting it among the seven long ones."
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Statistical Miracles of the Noble Quran

Originally posted by Proud_Syrian

P S:

Look man, you know you are ignorant about Islam history so why you want to insist on your ignorance ??
Ignorant? Not hardly, you have to paint a pretty picture of your lying man-made religion, otherwise how would you get converts? Let anyone look, and what do they see? A religion that broke out into the world to conquer, to pillage, to rape to bring terror to the rest of the world.

P S:

Again, stop being pathetic, I know my Quran, this is the second Surah and it is VERY VERY LONG:
are you blind? Don’t you see? The Quran was tampered with after the fact? Ok, so there was one flaw in their system, the left one surah out of order. So answer this Proud-Syrian, if the Quran is from God, why is the Quran out of order from how it was revealed? Why would it be put out of order? Could it because magicians, mathematicians & wholy men wanted to put it in a magic order, a man-made order, with codes & symmetry? How convenient, why is that? If it was from god, it would have stayed in the order that Mohammad revealed them, don’t you think?

P S:

Oh right !!! sanitized version of history is what ISLAMOPHOBES usually read.
and the version that islamfanatics read would be? The BIG BOOK of LIES? In descending order, form longest to shortest?

P S:

Again you are showing deep bias against the history of Islam, muslim armies went there to crush the romans and the Spanish who were threatning and murdering Muslims.
By “Romans”, I take it you mean the Byzantine Empire? Because Rome had fallen over two hundred years prior. You make me laugh, so is that how islamantics view history? The Byzantine Empire was busy defending itself against the Sassanid Empire (Persia=Iran), and when they met muslims, according to you, they foolishly flung themselves against arab swords & tried catching arab arrows with their chests? And what about the Spanish? There was no “Spanish” then either, it was the Visigoth Kingdom, which one claimant to the throne, foolishly asked for muslim help, will while they were there, the muslims saw how easy it would be to conquer a kingdom governed by foreign elites (the Germanic Visigoths), and in the process of fighting back for 781 years to regain their country, this forged the “Spanish” people out of the Visigoths, Romans & Iberio-Celts. Read more world history, open your eyes to the ‘real world’, that non-muslims know. So who did the threats & the murdering?

So, I did not hear a single word from you about INDONESIA AND MALAYSIA and how they became muslims !!! could it be you dont have an answer ??

Anyway, to read about this famous myth that Islam spread by sword,


since you only see what you want to see, I’ll repeat what I said from the post on page two of this thread,

==============================
Fourth, the fact that only the so-called original Arabic Quran is correct, implies to me that
it is an Arabic tool for conquest, which by the subsequent actions of its followers proves
me right, they didn’t send missionaries first, they sent conquerors to all ends of the earth
================================
P S:
WRONG AGAIN, it is well KNOWN historical fact that the muslim armies NEVER reached Indonesia and yet now indonesia is the BIGGEST MUSLIM COUNTRY IN THE WORLD WITH 200 MILLION MUSLIM !!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I said the armies went out first, not “ONLY”, lets see to the West they ended up all across North Africa to Spain, stopped by Charles Martel at Pointers, France. To the North they ended up across to the doors of Constantinople stopped by what remained of the Byzantine Empire. To the South all across the Arabian Peninsula (stopped by the sea). To the East up to the steppe (where they womped the Chinese T’ang army). You can look up the years. The missionaries came later.


P S:

What kind of nonesense is that ?? the Mongols and the Turks and the Tatar were killing murdering and plundering BEFORE they converted to Islam, they dont need Islam,
& after they converted they just kept on, what warriors they were, but of course they confined the rest of their wars against non-believers, which is entirely ok, isn’t it?

yet THEY CONVERTED and their conversion transformed them into CIVILIZED NATIONS..
I would find it hard to consider these people civilized, they still kept conquering, fighting, laying waste, do you know what ‘Janissaries’ are & how they became that?, do you know who raped & pillaged their way across the Balkans? See: http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0825967.html


stop parroting this myth about the 72 virgins...it is utter lie, nothing in Islam about virgins...LOL
OK, so they are slightly used non-virgins then? & why does the figure keep on changing; 70, 71 & 72? Are you saying that nowhere in islam does it say that martyrs will go to a paradise with 70 virgins? Liar! See:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/saturday_review/story/0,3605,631332,00.html


P S:

Hang on a second !! are you saying Islam make it ok to steal and plunder and lie to non-believer ??? SHOW ME WHERE IN THE QURAN ALLAH ALMIGHTY ORDERED MUSLIMS TO DO THAT ???
check out the evidence, what was Mohammad’s first victory? Badr? Would that not be the start of a pattern? Look at what happened in Spain after 711. islam means peace to muslims only, for muslims only, all others are fair game to pillage, rape, harass, hold hostage, extort, enslave & otherwise debase into Dhimmitude? See: http://www.dhimmi.org/

Stop being brainwashed by lies and myths....
that would be islam buddy, wash your brain clean, open your eyes, your mind & your heart, if islam is the religion of ‘peace’, why does it hate so much, why did it start to fight & conquer so soon after its inception? What happened after Mohammad’s death in 632? What did peace-loving muslims do for the next thousand years?


Islam is SPREADING IN MEXICO SO FAST...YOU JUST NEED TO ASK THOSE MEXICANS WHY ON EARTH THEY ARE CONVERTING TO '' BACKWARD''' RELIGION:

CHECK THESE MEXICAN SITES: …
so your people are active little devils, how insidious, poor deluded Mexican captives of those devious lies

P S:

Check it for myself ?? LOL..... you are like a parrot, you repeat what others say without even bothering to check it out...LOL.
No, the problem for you, is that I know too much about islam, & it’s not a laughing matter

P S:

I did not say Islam is an army, hell, do you understand English ?? I gave example of the army and if you desert the army in certain times you will be killed....there are some misguided people who leave Islam, NOTHING HAPPEN to them....show me EVIDENCE, SHOW ME LINKS....I DONT ACCEPT HEARSAY MR.PARROT.
so people get killed for the treason of leaving islam, is that what you are saying? So you won’t take anybodies word for this? Then you test it for yourself, tell your family & friends that you “have converted to Christianity & want to invite them to your baptism & would they be so kind to come?” See how long you live, Mr. Brave_Syrian?

P S:

Islam is the true religion because it is the fastest growing religion in the WORLD, muslims are now 2 BILLION and growing, churches in Europe are being sold to muslims to convert them into mosques....
so ‘fastest growing’ makes it true? Then being Chinese & Indian must be the true nationality, they are also the fastest growing & about 2 billion strong too. And eating McDonald’s must be the true food, why they have billions & billions served. Truth does not need billions of followers, only to be the “truth”, true to the ‘saved’ is not in numbers, but in “who” & “what” you believe, Jesus said, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” That’s in the Gospel of John 14:6, (chapter14, verse 6)


P S:

You are so rude, so abusive and so hateful....someone who described THE NOBELEST MAN IN THE WORLD LIKE THAT IS JUST NOT WORTHY TO ANSWER TO....
If Mohammad was the most ‘noble’, then why doesn’t everybody believe that? Is it ‘noble’ to kill the old, those that disagree with you, slaves that mock, poets that oppose, women in their bed, Jewish Arabs? ‘Noble’ indeed, then I must be an ‘angel’ for telling the truth, read the Hadiths to see how Mr. Noble dealt with opposition, See:
http://www.yahoodi.com/peace/blasphemy.html

very noble indeed, do you suggest we all act so noble? If we started now, we could create the biggest anarchist, chaotic uprising that the world has known, the only nobility we would see, is people sacrificing to save others from the sword & bloodshed.




Read this SIR:

"My choice of Muhammad to lead the list of the world's most influential persons may surprise some readers and may be questioned by others, but he was the only man in history who was supremely successful on both the religious and secular level." Michael H. Hart, THE 100: A RANKING OF THE MOST INFLUENTIAL PERSONS IN HISTORY, New York: Hart Publishing Company, Inc., 1978, p. 33.

influential yes, but right? No way, he was a warlord, a lawgiver, a tribal leader, that used a tribal god to unite the arabs into a unified fighting force, so were where the delegations to the Jews & Christians? The debaters & missionaries to the Halls of Kings of the world? Only swords flashed & blood flowed until arabs had conquered all those that they could, then the debaters & missionaries came afterwards


"I have always held the religion of Muhammad in high estimation because of its wonderful vitality. It is the only religion which appears to me to possess that assimilating capacity to the changing phase of existence which can make itself appeal to every age. I have studied him - the wonderful man and in my opinion for from being an anti-Christ, he must be called the Saviour of Humanity. I believe that if a man like him were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world, he would succeed in solving its problems in a way that would bring it the much needed peace and happiness: I have prophesied about the faith of Muhammad that it would be acceptable to the Europe of tomorrow as it is beginning to be acceptable to the Europe of today."

George Bernard Shaw, THE GENUINE ISLAM, Vol. 1, No. 81936.
so tell us, was GB Shaw a muslim? Did he die a believer?

"He was Caesar and Pope in one; but he was Pope without Pope's pretensions, Caesar without the legions of Caesar: without a standing army, without a bodyguard, without a palace, without a fixed revenue; if ever any man had the right to say that he ruled by the right divine, it was Mohammed, for he had all the power without its instruments and without its supports."

Bosworth Smith, MOHAMMAD AND MOHAMMADANISM, London, 1874, p. 92.
must be a closet muslim? Did he ever read the Hadiths? All the histories of the vanquished? Probably not!

PEACE BE UPON THOSE WHO FOLLOW THE RIGHT PATH.
& war to all else? Or are we not worthy of “PEACE”? Could you tell everybody what muslims call the rest of the non-muslim world? Does “Dar al-Harb” mean anything to you? See: http://bismikaallahuma.org/History/dar_islam-harb.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Quran late and corrupt

Greetings all,

The history of the Quran's formation shows it is anything but perfect, any argument based on codes found in the Quran is as scientific as seeing shapes in the clouds :


1. The Quran was not finalised until well after Mohamed's death
2. Much was lost at Yamama
3. Variant Qurans existed in the early days
4. The variants were different to modern Qurans
5. Abu Bakr collected his version from scraps and memories
6. Abu Bakr's version faded early from importance
7. Uthmann chose Abu Bakr's version for political expediency
8. Uthmann et al made changes to the new version
9. Muslims criticised Uthmann for destroying the Quran
10. Muslims crticised the new version as missing passages
11. Later changes were made to the Quran
12. Variant readings of the Quran exist to this day


This all goes to show the Quran is a book made by fallible people who chose between different versions, added to it, changed it, left out parts etc. etc.


Details follow :


Quran not written down or finalised during Mohamed's lifetime

The Quran was not collected in writing in Mohamed's time :

Narrated Zaid bin Thabit: Abu Bakr as-Siddiq sent for me when the people of Yamama had been killed. Then Abu Bakr said : "... you should search for the Qur'an and collect it ". By Allah! ... Then I said to Abu Bakr, "How will you do something which Allah's Apostle did not do?"... (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p.477).

A great part of the Quran was only recited shortly before Mohamed's death :

Narrated Anas bin Malik: Allah sent down his Divine Inspiration to His Apostle (saw) continuously and abundantly during the period preceding his death till He took him unto Him. That was the period of the greatest part of revelation, and Allah's Apostle (saw) died after that. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p.474).


This shows that the Quran was not collected or written down, or finalised before Mohamed's death - the Quran only formed many years after Mohamed.


Some of the Quran was lost to posterity :

Many passages were lost at the battle of Yamama :

Many (of the passages) of the Qur'an that were sent down were known by those who died on the day of Yamama ... but they were not known (by those who) survived them, nor were they written down, nor had Abu Bakr, Umar or Uthman (by that time) collected the Qur'an, nor were they found with even one (person) after them. (Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif, p.23).

This loss of some of the Quran inspired Abu bakr to begin collecting it.


Other Qurans existed in the early days

The variant Quran of Salim existed before Yamama and before Abu Bakr's (Zaid's) version (Salim was killed in the battle) :

It is reported ... from Ibn Buraidah who said: "The first of those to collect the Qur'an into a book was Salim, the freed slave of Abu Hudhaifah". (as-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur'an, p.135).

(This contradicts the claim that Abu Bakr collected the first Quran.)


Abdullah ibn Masud was considered the foremost authority on the Quran by Mohamed - his Quran was used in Kufa in Iraq.

The Quran of Abu Bakr (first Caliph) passed to Umar (2nd Caliph) then to Hafsah (daughter of Umar and "wife of the prophet"). Hafsah became a recluse and kept the Abu Bakr Quran hidden away. During this period there is no evidence that this version was considered more important or accurate than other versions such as Abdullah ibn Masud's or Salim's - on the contrary, it was left unpublicsed and kept away from public view.

The Quran of Ubayy ibn Ka'b was favoured in Syria.


The Quran was collected from scattered memory and written materials

Following the losses at Yamama, Abu Bakr is generally considered the first to collect the Quran :

It is reported ... from Ali who said: "May the mercy of Allah be upon Abu Bakr, the foremost of men to be rewarded with the collection of the manuscripts, for he was the first to collect (the text) between (two) covers". (Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif, p.5)


Abu Bakr entrusted the collection of the Quran to Zaid bin Thabit :

Narrated Zaid bin Thabit: Abu Bakr as-Siddiq sent for me when the people of Yamama had been killed. Then Abu Bakr said : "... you should search for the Qur'an and collect it ". By Allah! ... Then I said to Abu Bakr, "How will you do something which Allah's Apostle did not do?"... (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p.477).


Zaid had to collect his version of the Quran from many scattered and different sources :

So I started looking for the Qur'an and collecting it from palm-leaf stalks, thin white stones, and also from the men who knew it by heart, ...

Significantly, some passages were recovered from only ONE source :

...till I found the last verse of Surat at-Tauba (repentance) with Abi Khuzaima al-Ansari, and I did not find it with anybody other than him. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p.478).



Disputes about different versions of the Qurans lead to the first official version

About 20 years after Mohamed, an expedition under Hudhayfah ibn al-Yaman, made up of fighters from various regions, lead to disputes about different versions of the Quran.

Uthmann (3rd Caliph) then selected one version and had the rest DESTROYED :

Hudhaifa was afraid of their differences in the recitation of the Qur'an, so he said to Uthman, 'O Chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Qur'an) as Jews and the Christians did before'. So Uthman sent a message to Hafsa, saying, 'Send us the manuscripts of the Qur'an so that we may compile the Qur'anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you'. Hafsa sent It to Uthman. Uthman then ordered Zaid ibn Thabit, Abdullah bin az-Zubair, Sa'id bin al-As, and Abdur-Rahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, 'In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur'an, then write it in the dialect of the Quraish as the Qur'an was revealed in their tongue'. They did so, and when they had written many copies, Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur'anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p.479).

The reason for one Quran being chosen over the others was to prevent dissension - the version chosen was Abu Bakr's which had been hidden away for some years while other versions flourished. This shows one version was chosen for political expediency, not because it was the best version.


Abdullah ibn Mas'ud resisted this decree as his Quran was considered most authentic :

Abdullah ibn Mas'ud said, "I recited from the messenger of Allah (saw) seventy surahs which I had perfected before Zaid ibn Thabit had embraced Islam". (Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif, p.17).

"I acquired directly from the messenger of Allah (saw) seventy surahs when Zaid was still a childish youth - must I now forsake what I acquired directly from the messenger of Allah?" (Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif, p.15)

Early Muslims criticised Uthmann for "obliterating the Book of Allah" (Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif, p.36). At-Tabari wrote (1.6.2952) that Uthman was criticised : "The Qur'an was in many books, and you have now discredited them all but one"


It is clear that Uthmann had the new version changed in places :

Narrated Anas (ra): 'Uthman called Zaid bin Thabit, Abdullah bin az-Zubair, Sa'id bin Al-'As and 'Abdur-Rahman bin Al-Harith bin Hisham, and then they wrote the manuscripts (of the Qur'an). 'Uthman said to the three Quraishi persons, "If you differ with Zaid bin Thabit on any point of the Qur'an, then write it in the language of Quraish, as the Qur'an was revealed in their language". So they acted accordingly. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol.4, p.466).

This is not just changes in dialect pronunciation, as vowel points were not yet used - it means actual changes to the wording.


Those 2 verses found with ONLY Abi Khuzaima al-Ansari were apparently added to the Quran as a result of Khuzaima's initiative, under the later direction of of Uthmann:

Khuzaimah ibn Thabit said: "I see you have overlooked (two) verses and have not written them". They said "And which are they?" He replied "I had it directly from the messenger of Allah (saw) (Surah 9, ayah 128): 'There has come to you a messenger from yourselves. It grieves him that you should perish, he is very concerned about you : to the believers he is kind and merciful', to the end of the surah". Uthman said "I bear witness that these verses are from Allah". (Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif, p.11).

It seems Zaid initially left out these verses, and then added them when Khuzaima reminded him of them and Uthmann agreed they should be added.


Zaid admits to another passage being added at this later stage :

Zaid said 'I missed a verse from al-Ahzab (Surah 33) when we transcribed the mushaf (the written text of the Qur'an under Uthman's supervision). I used to hear the messenger of Allah (saw) reciting it. We searched for it and found it with Khuzaimah ibn Thabit al-Ansari: "From among the believers are men who are faithful in their covenant with Allah" (33.23). So we inserted it in the (relevant) surah in the text. (as-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur'an, p.138).

This all goes to show how chance and human errors and opinions contributed to the late formation of the Quran.


Textual problems with Utmann's recension :

One of the standardised Suras (2.238) was disputed in early times :

Abu Yunus, freedman of Aishah, Mother of Believers, reported: Aishah ordered me to transcribe the Holy Qur'an and asked me to let her know when I should arrive at the verse Hafidhuu alaas-salaati waas-salaatiil-wustaa wa quumuu lillaahi qaanitiin (2.238). When I arrived at the verse I informed her and she ordered: Write it in this way, Hafidhuu alaas-salaati waas-salaatiil-wustaa wa salaatiil 'asri wa quumuu lillaahi qaanitiin. She added that she had heard it so from the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him). (Muwatta Imam Malik, p.64).

Here, Aishah stated that the prophet had added the phrase "and the afternoon prayer", but this phrase is lost from the standard Quran. (Hafsah also had her scribe add this phrase.)

This variation is also recorded by Abdullah :

It is reported by Abdullah on the authority of Muhammad ibn Abdul Malik who reported from Yazid (etc.) ... It is written in the codex of Hafsah, the widow of the Prophet (saw): "Observe your prayers, especially the middle prayer and the afternoon prayer". (Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif, p.87).

The variation is also recorded by Ubayy ibn Ka'b and Umm Salama and ibn Abbas.

This is thus SIX early attestions that a passage is MISSING from the Quran of today.


The Quran of today is not complete :

It is reported from Ismail ibn Ibrahim from Ayyub from Naafi from Ibn Umar who said: "Let none of you say 'I have acquired the whole of the Qur'an'. How does he know what all of it is when much of the Qur'an has disappeared? Rather let him say 'I have acquired what has survived.'" (as-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur'an, p.524).

Pasages have been lost or removed from the Quran :

We used to recite a surah which resembled in length and severity to (Surah) Bara'at. I have, however, forgotten it with the exception of this which I remember out of it: "If there were two valleys full of riches, for the son of Adam, he would long for a third valley, and nothing would fill the stomach of the son of Adam but dust". ( Sahih Muslim, Vol. 2, p.501).


About a century after Uthmann, al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf made eleven consonantal corrections to the Quran :

Altogether al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf made eleven modifications in the reading of the Uthmanic text. ... In al-Baqarah (Surah 2.259) it originally read Lam yatasanna waandhur, but it was altered to Lam yatasannah ... In al-Ma'ida (Surah 5.48) it read Shari ya'atan wa minhaajaan but it was altered to shir 'atawwa minhaajaan. (Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif, p.117).


Variant Qurans still in use

There are many DIFFERENT Qurans in use today - this is due to the lack of vowel points in early Arabic, meaning a written word can be read in varying ways. There were several early "Readers", and the way the book was recited by a Reader was recorded by various "Transmitters" - given several "transmissions" of the text.

The following list shows the commonly accepted versions (Reader -> Transmitter) and where they are used :

The Seven :

1. Nafi -> Warsh (Algeria, Morocco, parts of Tunisia, West Africa and Sudan)
Nafi -> Qalun (Libya, Tunisia, parts of Qatar).

2. Ibn Kathir -> al-Bazzi
Ibn Kathir -> Qunbul

3. Abu `Amr al-'Ala' -> al-Duri (parts of Sudan and West Africa)
Abu `Amr al-'Ala' -> al-Suri

4. Ibn `Amir -> Hisham (Parts of Yemen)
Ibn `Amir -> Ibn Dhakwan (Parts of Yemen)

5. Hamzah -> Khalaf
Hamzah -> Khallad

6. al-Qisa'i -> al-Duri
al-Qisa'i -> Abu'l-Harith

7. Abu Bakr `Asim -> Hafs (general use)
Abu Bakr `Asim -> Ibn `Ayyash (general use)


The Three :

8. Abu Ja'far -> Ibn Warden
Abu Ja'far -> Ibn Jamaz

9. Ya`qub al-Hashimi -> Ruways
Ya`qub al-Hashimi -> Rawh

10. Khalaf al-Bazzar -> Ishaq
Khalaf al-Bazzar -> Idris al-Haddad


Iasion
 
1.It is no surprise that believers defend their faith at any costs. Every religion has brainwashing capability. So there is absolutely no point in arguing with hardcore believers – they see only those arguments they are allowed.
2.But it makes me sad when I see alleged atheists using false claims, distorted facts and pointless accusations.
3.Quran is not ripped off Bible. Yes, Muhammad was inspired by Judaism and Christianity, but Quran is stand alone work and beautiful poetry.
4.Every monotheistic religion is somewhat violent, intolerant and hostile. Judaism, Christianity, Islam - they are all alike. There are stories of justified genocide in Old Testament and Spaniards, Englishmen, Dutch and others used them to justify their genocide of indigenous people of America and Africa.
5.According to my opinion Christianity nowadays is not as hostile as Islam only because it lost its unity and political power.
 
Iasion

It seems that this Iasion likes to steal others writings, and we wish he steal good work, contrary, he steals lousy work with no references, and as subjective as they come. Iasion, if you will get in the habit of stealing from the internet, please steal quality work, like Socrates work, ect, you want to attribute the best to your lack of opinion.

As far the garbage you cut and pasted above, I say, good for you. I recommend you stay away from the Quran, don't read it, don't comment on it, and definetly restrain from playing an expert on it....The rule goes, you can't bake your yucky cake and eat it too, but I will give you an exemption and all you to eat it for noone else is interested.
 
Greeting Flores,

It seems that this Iasion likes to steal others writings

False.
I wrote that myself.
Do you have any evidence to back up your FALSE WITNESS?
No?
Then retract your false claim or you will be seen to be an outright LIAR.


with no references,

Pardon?
Do you have trouble reading English?
My items had specific, detailed references to Muslim writers.
You either did not even read my post, or cannot actually understand English.


and as subjective as they come.

Wrong again.
My post gave objective specifics - names, dates, places.
Your failure to address ANY of my points shows you are UNABLE to make an argument.


Iasion, if you will get in the habit of stealing from the internet, please steal quality work, like Socrates work, ect, you want to attribute the best to your lack of opinion.

So,
you LIE outright,
you show you can't understand English,
you make personal attacks,

but you totally fail to address ANY of the issues I raised !


Clearly you are the village idiot of these boards Flores, I doubt I'll be answering any of your childish tirades again.


Meanwhile, I look forward to rational debate with people who can understand English and make an argument.


Iasion
 
Originally posted by Iasion
False.
I wrote that myself.
Do you have any evidence to back up your FALSE WITNESS?

Yes I do, I know arabic perfectly and is familiar with attempts to discredit the Quran. Those sites you use base their conclusions on extremely minor differences in pronounciations that wouldn't make a difference in the meaning or recitation of Quran....These extreme minor pronounciation differences are bound to occur in the writing of any book and only idiots who are not interested in studying the merit of the book concentrate their efforts on such futile areas. Yet you call these differences to be grounds for different Quranic versions and contintue your fishing trip in dirty waters to proof your false preconceptions.

If you can be a MAN and do a point by point arabic comparison with me on these different Quran's that you claim exist, then maybe I clear your head from the buggs, but that of course requires that you know arabic and thus not acting as just a copy cat of opinions.

There are hundreds of internet sites that was used to compile the piece of shit you wrote and I saw the marks of your stealing all over them. Now whether I should spend my time chasing your lies would depend on whether you are MAN enough to show us in any detail the nature of the differences of the Qurans that you claim found. So go do your homework and you might just get some answer from me then. Nice Iasion. You change a couple of words, steal from many sites, and you might just get away with it, but it doesn't change the fact that you are a lier. I did a google search using every topic that you showed and I got same exact garbage from christian answering Islam sites, neverthless, I'm wasting my time on you, given that you have never held an intelligent discussion on sciforums in the past.

Originally posted by Iasion
Then retract your false claim or you will be seen to be an outright LIAR.


You are such an idiot. Let it be stricken in internet history that Iasion can steal from the internet and get away with it. That's the extent of my retraction.

Originally posted by Iasion
Pardon?
Do you have trouble reading English?
My items had specific, detailed references to Muslim writers.

I actually have much trouble reading garbage in any language. And my Masters and PhD dissertation in Civil Engineering- Sediment transport from top US universities, is more than a qualifier for my intellectual and English abilites. A couple of ASCE publications in the journal of environment would show you how well I write, specially that one of my articels was granted best paper of the year, but I can't share with you this info, because you might just be a wacko.. Back to the topic, Do you know arabic per say? If you answer No, then you are a fool who have just venued into a subject that you have no clue about. Please tell me you don't know arabic, so that we can all see you for the idiot that you are. If you know arabic, I'll debate with you your points, but if you don't know arabic, consider yourself a certified professional idiot.

And, how about I go now and create another Quran by changing a couple of words and I issue a new version, would you perhaps add this version to your stupid list...Come on, answer this. Why did you choose this list in specific, what is the prerequisite to issuing a Quranic version. Do you have any understanding whatsoever of what constitues a version.

For a start, a version is a modification from an original text intended to correct a mistake. Please explain to me why where those versions created, what are the exact differences between these versions and the origninal text, and who determines the legitimacy of a religious scripture, and what is their relation to the original text....and if you are insulting a version, then what is your views of the original text.

Muslim writers...? Yeah, whatever you and other Islam haters say! Let me post some crap or write a stupid book and call it a fact just because it was published. All you say is a grand fabrication, and it's not my problem that you discount the truth and run away wasting your time chasing lies and fallacy. There is no doubt that there are lies out there, and it's your problem that you go chasing the lies, I for one am very clear about the truth and don't allow myself to sway at the whim of lies.

Originally posted by Iasion
Clearly you are the village idiot of these boards Flores, I doubt I'll be answering any of your childish tirades again.

Fine, proof that you are not a lier and don't answer me....BE A MAN and stand behind your post... and don't answer me...Yeah right, your pants are already on fire as you prepare your answer.

Originally posted by Iasion
Meanwhile, I look forward to rational debate with people who can understand English and make an argument.
Iasion

Keep waiting, and please hold your breath, it'll do you very good.

PS. If you don't know arabic, then answering your stupid post is a waste of time. I'll give you a point by point responce if you know arabic, and I highly doubt that.
 
Last edited:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org


Claims & Contradictions

Every book is to be dealt with on the basis of what is claims and how it is to be understood. The Qur'ân is no exception to this. The claim of the Qur'ân is that:



Do they not consider the Qur'ân (with care)? Had it been from other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much discrepancy. [Qur'ân 4:82]

There are two methods of examining whether the Qur'ân is what it claims to be.

The first is a very cumbersome process, which involves reading the whole book, verifying the information present in it and then passing a verdict.

The second method is much simpler. This would involve not to look to the meanings of the words, but to treat them as abstract logical terms. To make this clear let us consider the difference between

Tokyo is a large city

and

Tokyo has 5 letters

In one phrase, we are referring to the city and in the other to the name 'Tokyo'. Let us now apply this logic to the Qur'ân. We can rewrite verse 4:82 as:

Do they not consider the Qur'ân (with care)? Had it been from other than Allah, they would surely have found therein ikhtilâfan kathîran. [Qur'ân 4:82]

Or

Do they not consider the Qur'ân (with care)? Had it been from other than Allah, they would surely have found therein ikhtilâfan many. [Qur'ân 4:82]

Rearranging the words, we get:

Do they not consider the Qur'ân (with care)? Had it been from other than Allah, they would surely have found therein many ikhtilâfan. [Qur'ân 4:82]

Now, what a clever logician would do is to simply treat ikhtilâfan as a word and not consider its meaning and start counting number of its occurrences in the Qur'ân. This would simply enable him to check whether the author of the Qur'ân understands the difference between use and mention of the word. The clever logician would find that the word ikhtilâfan occurs only once in the Qur'ân, i.e., in the above verse.[1] Therefore, had the Qur'ân been from any other than Allah, the logician would surely have found therein many ikhtilâfan.

One can say that this is an isolated case. However, we notice that the word wahîdan meaning "alone"[2] did occur in the Qur'ân:

Leave Me and him whom I created alone (wahîdan) [Qur'ân 74:11]

What would you expect for this word, how many times is the word "alone" in the Qur'ân? The answer is once.[3] It is alone.

How is the Qur'ân to be undestood? This would be important before one can even claim a contradiction in the Qur'ân. This is dealt with in the next section.

Understanding The Qur'ân

Before we embark upon refuting the claim of Christian missionaries that there are internal contradictions in the Qur'ân, there is a need to do a systematic exposition of how the Qur'ân is to be understood, and that is the aim of this article.

Here we discuss the most important aspect of the Qur'ânic exegesis, the principle that the best tafsîr or exegesis of the Qur'ân is the Qur'ân itself.

All honest attempts at tafseer must begin with the tafsîr of the Qur'ân by Qur'ân itself. What is remained unexplained must be then sought in the Sunnah.[4]

Ahmad von Denffor elaborates:

The interpretation of the Qur'ân by the Qur'ân is the highest source of tafsîr. Many of the questions which may arise out of certain passage of the Qur'ân have their explanation in other parts of the very same book, and often there is a no need to turn to any sources other than the word of Allah, which in itself contains tafsîr. To seek to explain an âya from the Qur'ân by referring to another âya from the Qur'ân is the first and foremost duty of the mufassir. Only if this does not suffice, he will refer to other sources of tafsîr.[5]

A careful reader of the Qur'ân would notice that the distribution of the material, whether it is the stories of the Prophets of the past, Day of Judgment, heaven and hell, previous scriptures etc., varies in length between one surah and the other. It is sometimes very short and sometimes it is very long. But when the material mentioned is very short, it recalls and evokes the more extended descriptions. So, the exegesis of the Qur'ân is carried by the Qur'ân itself. This is brought out particularly in the Qur'ânic commentaries which apply the two principles: al-Qur'ân yufassiru bacduhu bacdan (different parts of the Qur'ân explain one another) and yuhmal al-mutlaq cala-muqayyad (unqualified statements should be interpreted in the light of qualified ones).[6]

We will deal only with the first principle in detail, i.e., al-Qur'ân yufassiru bacduhu bacdan. The material which is used here is from Context And Internal Relationships: Keys To Qur'ânic Exegesis A Study Of Surat al-Rahmân, an article written by Professor M A S Abdel Haleem of School of Oriental & African Studies. This article is in the book Approaches To The Qur'ân, G R Hawtings & 'Abdul Kader A Shareef, Routledge, London & New York, 1993, pp. 71-98. We are only going to use some part of the article here without making changes. Interested people may refer to the original article in the book.

Introduction[7]

This paper argues that a most relevant and fruitful approach to understanding the text of the Qur'ân is by means of two key concepts developed by Muslim scholars in the classical period; context and internal relationships. The importance of context (maqâm) was recognized and formulated for the study of the text of the Qur'ân by Muslim linguists whose work in this respect anticipated by many centuries modern linguistic thinking. Internal relationships were encapsulated in the dictum: al-Qur'ân yufassiru bacduhu bacdan (different parts of the Qur'ân explain one another), which, given the structure of Qur'ânic material, was argued to provide the most correct method of understanding the Qur'ân.

Context & Internal Relationships[8]

The Qur'ân was the starting point of numerous branches of Arabic and Islamic studies. In his Itqân, Sûyutî dedicates a chapter to al-culûm al-mustanbata min al-Qur'ân in which he quotes from the commentary of Al-Mursî a passage listing various sciences based on the Qur'ân and developed to serve it, and to serve Islamic studies in general: branches such as phonetics, grammar, ûsul, fiqh, tafsîr, balâgha and others.

Balâgha was undoubtedly one of the most important subjects for Qur'ânic exegesis, and began and developed around the central question of the appreciation of the style of the Qur'ân and its i'jaz in particular, as witnessed by such titles as Dala'il al-i'jâz of cAbd al-Qâhir al-Jurjânî. The importance of balâgha, especially cilm al-macânî and cilm al-bayân, for tafsîr in general is universally recognized and the attention paid to it by such commentators as Zamakhsharî and Râzî gives their work particular distinction.

One of the important contributions of scholars of balâgha was their recognition of the concept of maqâm (the context of the situation) and its role in determining the utterance and providing the criterion for judging it. A central issue in cilm al-macânî is: mutâbaqat al-kalâm li-muqtadâ'i 'l-hâl (the conformity of the utterance to the requirements of the situation).

Al-Khatîb al-Qazwînî explains:

The context that demands the definite, generalization, advancement of part of a discourse, and inclusion (of particular words) differs from the context that demands the indefinite, specification, postponement and omission; the context of separation differs from that of joining; the situation that requires conciseness differs from that requiring expansiveness. Discourse with an intelligent person differs from discourse with an obtuse one. Each word with its companion is suited to a particular context. A high standard of beauty and acceptability of speech depends on its appropriateness to the situation and vice versa.

Tammam Hassan points out that when scholars of balâgha recognized the concept of maqâm, they were one thousand years ahead of their time, since the recognition of maqâm and maqâl as two separate bases for the analysis of meaning has been arrived at only recently as a result of modern linguistic thinking. When they said li-kull maqâm maqâl (each context demands its own distinctive form of speech) and li-kull kalima maca sâhibatihâ maqâm (each word, with its companion, should have its own context) they hit on two remarkable statements that could be applied equally to the study of other languages. When Malinowski coined his famous term 'the context of the situation' he did not know that scholars had formulated the same concept a thousand years earlier under the name maqâm.

Scholars of usûl al-fiqh have recognized the importance of the notions of maqâm and maqâl for the study of the Qur'ân. In his Muwafaqal Shâtibî states:

The science of macani and bayân by which the i'jâz of the Qur'ân is recognized, revolves around knowing the requirements of the situation during the discourse from the point of view of the discourse itself, the discursant, the discursee or all of them together; for the same statement can be understood in different ways in relation to two different addressees or more. A question with one and the same form can imply other meanings, such as agreement, scolding etc. Likewise an imperative can have the meaning of permission, threat, incapacity/impossibility.

Another key tool of Qur'ânic exegesis is the internal relationships between material in different parts of the Qur'ân, expressed by Qur'ânic scholars as: al-Qur'ân yufassiru bacduhu bacdan (different parts of the Qur'ân explain each other). Utilization of such relationships is considered by Ibn Taymiyya to be the most correct method of tafsîr (asahh al-turuq). He explains; 'What is given in a general way in one place is explained in detail in another place. What is given briefly in one place is expanded in another.' Shâtibî states that many Qur'ânic verses/passages can only be properly understood in the light of explanations provided in other verses or suras. This old concept in Qur'ânic studies may, thus, be viewed within the framework of the modern linguistic concept of 'intertextuality' which involves the dependence of one text upon another.

Certain themes have been treated in more than one place in the Qur'ân, including, for instance, God's power and grace, the hereafter, stories of earlier prophets, etc. The conciseness or expansion in one place or another depends on muqtadâ'i 'l-hâl, and an expanded statement in one place clarifies a concise one in another. Sound linguistic analysis surely requires that a technique of comparison in such situations should not be ignored. Commenting on stories of earlier prophets, Shâtibî again remarked that their purpose was to strengthen the Prophet in the face of various forms of denial and obstinacy from his opponents at different times. The form of the story would echo a situation similar to that which the Prophet was facing.

The particular from of the narrative varies according to the situation, while all of it is true, factual, with no doubt about its being correct.

Sûyutî mentions a feature of Qur'ânic style that further illustrates the internal relationships of Qur'ânic passages, namely, al-iqtisas for which such examples as the following were given:

wa-lawlâ nicmatu rabbî la-kuntu min al-muhdarîn (37:57) with reference to : ûlâ'ika fi'l-'adhâbi muhdarûn (34:38) and yawma 'l-tanâdî (40:32) with reference to wa-nâdâ ashâbu 'l-jannati ashâba 'l-nâri (7:44).

Readers of the Qur'ân recognize this feature clearly. Take for example a verse from the Fâtiha, that practising Muslims recite many times daily: sirât alladhîna an'amta 'alayhim (1:7) and how it is clarified with reference to alladhîna an'ama 'llâhu 'alayhim mina 'l-nabiyyîna wa'l-siddîqîna wa'l-shuhadâ'i wa'l-salihîna (4:69).

The importance of context in determining the meaning of any discourse, Qur'ân or otherwise, is now established beyond doubt. The style of the Qur'ân being what it is, the importance of internal relationships in understanding the text of the Qur'ân cannot be seriously challenged. Context, with the expression it demands, and internal relationships which call for comparison between different related statements in the Qur'ân focus our attention on the Qur'ânic text itself, which must surely take priority over any other approach to understanding and explaining the Qur'ân.

Examples[9]

A case in the point is the detailed explanation of 5:2 by 5:4, concerning permissible and prohibited meat. Another example of explanation of one aya in the Qur'ân by another concerns a question of which might arise from Sûra 44:3. It is explained in Sûra 97:1

We sent it down during a Blessed Night: [Qur'ân 44:3]

Which might is this blessed night, in which the Qur'ân was sent down?

We have indeed revealed this (Message) in the Night of Power. [Qur'ân 97:1]

A third example is the explanation of Sûra 2:37 by Sûra 7:23:

Then learnt Adam from his Lord words of inspiration, and his Lord Turned towards him; for He is Oft-Returning, Most Merciful. [Qur'ân 2:37]

These 'words of inspiration' are explained by the Qur'ân as follows:

"Our Lord! We have wronged our own souls: If thou forgive us not and bestow not upon us Thy Mercy, we shall certainly be lost." [Qur'ân 7:23]

Conclusions

It is discussed that the key to the Qur'ânic exegesis is the Qur'ân itself. One of the key tool of the Qur'ânic exegesis is the context and the other the internal relationships between material in different parts of the Qur'ân; the latter is expressed by Qur'ânic scholars as: al-Qur'ân yufassiru bacduhu bacdan (different parts of the Qur'ân explain each other). The other important principle is yuhmal al-mutlaq cala-muqayyad (unqualified statements should be interpreted in the light of qualified ones).Together, these two principles play and important role in understanding the themes in the Qur'ân that discuss God's power and grace, the hereafter, stories of earlier prophets, etc. Concerning these issues what is given in a general way in one place is discussed in detail in some other place in the Qur'ân. What is dealt with briefly at one place is expanded in some other place.

It will be seen, inshallah, that using the above two principles, which are the key to the Qur'ânic exegesis are also keys in refuting so-called internal contradictions in the Qur'ân as claimed by the Christian missionaries.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Statistical Miracles of the Noble Quran

Originally posted by Randolfo
Ignorant? Not hardly, you have to paint a pretty picture of your lying man-made religion, otherwise how would you get converts? Let anyone look, and what do they see? A religion that broke out into the world to conquer, to pillage, to rape to bring terror to the rest of the world.
==========================

be advised that your attitude will reserve you a very 'hot' place in hell, someone so pathetic and ignorant like you only deserve one thing: to be ignored.

Peace be with you.
 
Greetings Flores,

Good god man,
are you always so full of hate and anger and insults and vitriol?


Yes I do, ... Those sites you use

No you don't.
You said I stole that piece, you FAILED to show that I stole it.
Instead you waffle on about Christian hate sites.
You totally failed to show I plagiarized.
You are full of piss and wind.


these different Quran's that you claim exist

Hmm ..
Funny how you totally IGNORED the vast majority of my post, and instead focussed on the last point, (which is not a major one).

Funny how you ignored my points about the LATENESS of the Quran.
Funny how you ignored my points about the verses LOST from the Quran.
Funny how you ignored my points about Uthmann's expedient choice of one Quran from many.
Funny how you ignored my points about the early VARIANT Qurans.
Funny how you ignored my points about early Muslim crticism of Uthmann.
Funny how you ignored my points about other changes made to the Quran.

Its clear that you ignored these points because you have no answer for them.


So go do your homework and you might just get some answer from me then.

I did my homework, I posted a detailed critique with many points all backed up with citations - you failed to answer my points, instead resorting to worthless vitriol and empty hyperbole.


You change a couple of words,

False.
You lie again.
Put up or shut up.


steal from many sites

Are you a total idiot?
Are you saying no-one can get information from internet sites?
So therefore you NEVER get information from the internet, because it would be stealing.


but it doesn't change the fact that you are a lier.

Pardon?
Where did I lie?
Put up or shut up.

"lier" "per say" ?
A PhD who can't even spell?
"Let it be stricken in internet "

Hmm .. you don't even know what "stricken" means do you?

Your level of literacy is woeful - if you really have a degree, I'd guess Pacific Western U.

I'm wasting my time on you, given that you have never held an intelligent discussion on sciforums in the past.

I was right -
you ARE a compete idiot.
You actually seem to believe that a person's first post here is worthless, just because its the first.


Flores,
you need psychological help.

Iasion
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Statistical Miracles of the Noble Quran

Originally posted by Proud_Syrian

be advised that your attitude will reserve you a very 'hot' place in hell, someone so pathetic and ignorant like you only deserve one thing: to be ignored.
that depends on whose god is real, your Arabic tribal moon god, or the God of the Universe which I follow. I may get in trouble for not 'turning the other cheek', but I am a Christian zealot, who will not back down from lies that bash Christianity or liars that lead others to the wide path of destruction.

Jesus said, "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.
Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves."
From the Gospel of Matthew 7:13 -15 (chapter 7: verses 13 to 15).




Peace be with you.
and to you, 'salaam'
 
Originally posted by Proud_Syrian

Claims & Contradictions

Every book is to be dealt with on the basis of what is claims and how it is to be understood. The Qur'ân is no exception to this. The claim of the Qur'ân is that:



Do they not consider the Qur'ân (with care)? Had it been from other than Allah, they would surely have found therein much discrepancy. [Qur'ân 4:82]

There are two methods of examining whether the Qur'ân is what it claims to be.

The first is a very cumbersome process, which involves reading the whole book, verifying the information present in it and then passing a verdict.

The second method is much simpler. This would involve not to look to the meanings of the words, but to treat them as abstract logical terms. To make this clear let us consider the difference between

Understanding The Qur'ân

Before we embark upon refuting the claim of Christian missionaries that there are internal contradictions in the Qur'ân, there is a need to do a systematic exposition of how the Qur'ân is to be understood, and that is the aim of this article.

Here we discuss the most important aspect of the Qur'ânic exegesis, the principle that the best tafsîr or exegesis of the Qur'ân is the Qur'ân itself.

All honest attempts at tafseer must begin with the tafsîr of the Qur'ân by Qur'ân itself. What is remained unexplained must be then sought in the Sunnah.[4]

if this allah can abrogate rules & change his mind, he displays the mind of a man, by the name of Mohammad, why would the qibla be changed after Jews refuse to convert? can mohammad marry whom he wishes, why just ask allah, he'll approve. allah as joker, changer of mind like the wind blows, to & fro, is the mind of allah. Can the quran hold up against criticism? I think not, can you use the quran to self-analyze itself, only if you are already brainwashed, it does not read like a holy book, it let's people rape, kill, enslave, plunder, it's so-called prophet, messenger, apostle used it to start an arab empire, for arabs, by arabs, using an arabic moon god, with daughters that were so ruthlessly abandoned, with verses that had to be taken out, because they were satanic, why couldn't Mohammad tell they were satanic in the first place? because he was not a prophet, a messenger, or an apostle.

First, you, or anyone else for that matter, can not say why the order of the quran was changed, because that would show that the quran is not perfect, divine or statistically a miracle. Just the work of a caliph by the name of Uthmann

See links below for greek lexicon of the words: prophet, angel & apostle:

http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4396
http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=32
http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=652&l=en
 
Originally posted by Randolfo
if this allah can abrogate rules & change his mind, he displays the mind of a man, by the name of Mohammad, why would the qibla be changed after Jews refuse to convert? can mohammad marry whom he wishes, why just ask allah, he'll approve. allah as joker, changer of mind like the wind blows, to & fro, is the mind of allah. Can the quran hold up against criticism? I think not, can you use the quran to self-analyze itself, only if you are already brainwashed, it does not read like a holy book, it let's people rape, kill, enslave, plunder, it's so-called prophet, messenger, apostle used it to start an arab empire, for arabs, by arabs, using an arabic moon god, with daughters that were so ruthlessly abandoned, with verses that had to be taken out, because they were satanic, why couldn't Mohammad tell they were satanic in the first place? because he was not a prophet, a messenger, or an apostle.

Typical Jewish futile arguments. No wonder how many miracles Moses brought forward, they asked the same dumb questions and placed a mute golden calf in his place.
 
First, you are talking to a female mother of two.

Originally posted by Iasion
Funny how you ignored my points about the LATENESS of the Quran.

please specify the Lateness you speak off. Or you wish me chase a wild goose?

Originally posted by Iasion
Funny how you ignored my points about the verses LOST from the Quran.

Indicate the verses please, and let's have a discussion specific to your concern....or is another piss in the wind on your part.

Originally posted by Iasion
Funny how you ignored my points about Uthmann's expedient choice of one Quran from many.

You fail to proof it was expedient. Uthman chose the one Quran that was most agreed upon by all those that were wittness to the revelation and review process. All the other Qurans were almost exactly the same except for very minor stuff that wouldn't make a difference to a normal reader. A decision had to be made and a decision was made.. What is exactly your problem. Do you wish adopt another version of the Quran and someone is stopping you.

Originally posted by Iasion
Funny how you ignored my points about the early VARIANT Qurans.

Bring it on buddy. Show me the extent of the variation. Show me the pudding.

Originally posted by Iasion
Funny how you ignored my points about early Muslim crticism of Uthmann.

Bring it on. Point by point criticism, the source of criticism and how it was handled. Again more pissing on your part. You got some leaky urethera buddy.

Originally posted by Iasion
Funny how you ignored my points about other changes made to the Quran.

Bring it on, the changes. Yes, bring it on in Arabic. let's discuss.

Originally posted by Iasion
Its clear that you ignored these points because you have no answer for them.

No I ignored you, because you're as fluffy as Barney. Bring on substance and you'll be respected. Steal claims from the internet and bulldoze them here without an ounce of understanding and I'll insult the hell out of you.


Originally posted by Iasion
I did my homework, I posted a detailed critique with many points all backed up with citations - you failed to answer my points, instead resorting to worthless vitriol and empty hyperbole.

You do some shitty homework. May I ask what is your educational background, and your career of choice.



Originally posted by Iasion
Put up or shut up.

Now stand infront of a mirror and repeat those words to yourself


PS. Now I believe you irgnored my question on whether you know arabic or not? By not knowing arabic my friend, you have no business evaluating Quranic scripture accuracy and criticizing versions and early publishings. You can't even begin to understand the type of variations in the arabic text and conclude whether these variations were important or not. How the hell do you bring a subject that complex that is way beyond your understanding without even knowing the language with a straight face is beyond me.

As much as your useless tits will never produce milk, please be advised that you have absolutely no equipment to study in any great depth the great book of Quran.
 
Last edited:
A question

Originally posted by Flores
Raithere,
I had the same feeling about the Quran, but the question in mind that still couldn't be answered is:
***How could the Quran be such a consistent mathematically and grammatically perfect piece of work while it was not even written down as it was revealed to the Prophet.

Question:
1) Is it true or false that the Qur’an gives specific "mathematical" rules in regards to dividing inheritance?
2) Do ALL Muslims follow the identical "mathematical" rules of inheritance (even in obscure circumstances) WITHOUT exception?

If certain sects DO follow different mathematical formulas (based on the Nobel Qur’an) and arrive at different outcomes – what does that then imply about mathmatics and the Nobel Qur’an?

On the side: when ever I run into these sorts of statements I always think about Eratosthenes measuring the diameter of the earth. If Eratosthenes had said this was a god inspired vision and the measurement had landed in a religious text – well then people would be going on and on about how Eratosthenes was a prophet.

On a sarcastic note: Did you know that when the exact same mathematical formulas where applied to "War and Peace" Tolstoy also predicts the future (ad hoc)!! Wow, Tolstoy may be a prophet and War and Peace may be God inspired?
:)
 
Re: A question

Originally posted by Michael
On a sarcastic note: Did you know that when the exact same mathematical formulas where applied to "War and Peace" Tolstoy also predicts the future (ad hoc)!! Wow, Tolstoy may be a prophet and War and Peace may be God inspired?
:)

My friend, Tolstoy would have never claimed to be prophet, because people that come up with such importnat findings are always truthful people. You comparison and thought process is absolutely faulty. Tolstoy knew the extent of his inspiration to be himself. Prophet Muhammed could have done the same as Tolstoy and claimed himself founder of Quran, god, king, ect....but he chose to tell the simple truth that he was inspired by some angel through god. DO YOU KNOW HOW CRAZY THAT SOUNDS? Would you claim such a thing if you had a grand agenda of becoming the most powerful man in history? His claim would have gotten him killed instantly if it wasn't for god support.
 
Originally posted by Flores
Typical Jewish futile arguments. No wonder how many miracles Moses brought forward, they asked the same dumb questions and placed a mute golden calf in his place.

Dear sister:

Dont bother with these christian haters, and let us see how merciful their 'lord' is :

CANNIBALISM IN THE BIBLE:

2KINGS 6:29 "So we cooked my son and ate him. The next day I said to her, 'Give up your son so we may eat him,' but she had hidden him

Killing according to the will of 'their' lord:

2KI NGS2:23-24 ''Forty-two children are mauled and killed, presumably , according to the will of God for having jeered at a man of God''

2KINGS 10:7 Jehu has Ahab's seventy sons beheaded, then sends the heads to their father.

2KINGS 10:17 "And when he came to Samaria, he slew all that remained to Ahab in Samaria, till he had wiped them out, according to the word of the Lord ...."

and much more.......to read more about the great bible, please check this amazing site:

http://www.evilbible.com
 
Originally posted by Randolfo
===========================

THE BIBLE AND PEACE:

20:29-30 The Israelites smite 100,000 Syrian soldiers in one day. A wall falls on 27,000 remaining Syrians.

2KI NGS2:23-24 Forty-two children are mauled and killed, presumably according to the will of God, for having jeered at a man of God.

2KI NGS5:27 Elisha curses Gehazi and his descendants forever with leprosy.

2KINGS 6:29 "So we cooked my son and ate him. The next day I said to her, 'Give up your son so we may eat him,' but she had hidden him."

2KINGS 9:30-37 Jehu has Jezebel killed. Her body is trampled by horses. Dogs eat her flesh so that only her skull, feet, and the palms of her hands remain.

2KINGS 10:7 Jehu has Ahab's seventy sons beheaded, then sends the heads to their father.

2KINGS 10:14 Jehu has forty-two of Ahab's kin killed.

2KINGS 10:17 "And when he came to Samaria, he slew all that remained to Ahab in Samaria, till he had wiped them out, according to the word of the Lord ...."

2KINGS 10:19-27 Jehu uses trickery to massacre the Baal worshippers.

2KINGS 14:5, 7 Amaziah kills his servants and then 10,000 Edomites.

2KINGS 15:3-5 Even though he did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, the Lord smites Azariah with leprosy for not having removed the "high places."

2KINGS 15:16 Menahem ripped open all the women who were pregnant.

2KINGS 19:35 An angel of the Lord kills 185,000 men.

2CHRONICLES 13:17 500,000 Israelites are slaughtered.

2CHRONICLES 21:4 Jehoram slays all his brothers.

PSALMS 144:1 God is praised as the one who trains hands for war and fingers for battle

ISAIAH 49:26 The Lord will cause the oppressors of the Israelite's toeat their own flesh and to become drunk on their own blood as with wine.

EZEKIEL 6:12-13 The Lord says: "... they will fall by the sword, famine and plague. He that is far away will die of the plague, and he that is near will fall by the sword, and he that survives and is spared will die of famine. So will I spend my wrath upon them. And they will know I am the Lord, when the people lie slain among their idols around their altars, on every high hill and on all the mountaintops, under every spreading tree and every leafy oak ...."

EZEKIEL 9:4-6 The Lord commands: "... slay old men outright, young men and maidens, little children and women ...."

EZEKIEL 20:26 In order that he might horrify them, the Lord allowed the Israelites to defile themselves through, amongst other things, the sacrifice of their first-born children.

EZEKIEL 21:3-4 The Lord says that he will cut off both the righteous and the wicked that his sword shall go against all flesh.

EZEKIEL 23:25,47 God is going to slay the sons and daughters of those who were whores.

HOSEA 13:16 "They shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up."

MATTHEW 11:21-24 Jesus curses [the inhabitants of] three cities who were not sufficiently impressed with his great works.

http://www.evilbible.com
http://www.answering-christianity.com
http://www.jesus-or-allah.come
 
Back
Top